Saved By the Bell: Reclaiming Home Court Advantage for At‐Risk Youth Funneled into the School‐to‐Prison Pipeline

• Author: Rainét N. Spence
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12464
• Date: 01 January 2020
• Published date: 01 January 2020

STUDENT NOTES

SAVED BY THE BELL: RECLAIMING HOME COURT ADVANTAGE

FOR AT-RISK YOUTH FUNNELED INTO THE

SCHOOL-TO-PRISON PIPELINE

Rainét N. Spence

Far too often, minority students are faced with punitive disciplinary actions and are consequently directed to the “school-to-

prison”pipeline. From education to discipline, implementation of policies that criminalize minor delinquent behavior pushes

these students out of school and into the juvenile justice system. Traditional disciplinary actions that would land students in

the principal’soffice have gradually transformed to students being handcuffed and thrown in jail. This Note proposes a model

statute requiring states with a high criminal delinquency rate to implement school-based youth courts in public high schools.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:

There are approximately 3.45 million students who are subjected to out-of-schoolsuspensions.

Students who continuously face suspension and expulsion are more likely to land behind bars.

The school-to-prison pipeline disproportionately affects minorities and disabled students.

School-based youth courts mirror the structure of traditional juvenile courts but yield higher success rates in decreas-

ing recidivism.

Youth offenders are more likely to participate in school-based youth courts because their peers exert positive

influence.

Keywords: At-risk Youth; Delinquency; Disciplinary Policies; Disparities; School-based Youth Courts; School-to-Prison

Pipeline; Stigmatization; Zero Tolerance.

I. INTRODUCTION

In the face of zero tolerance policies, fourteen-year old Kyle Thompson was forced to grow up

quickly.

1

On March 2013, Kyle was placed under house arrest, instructed to refrain from participat-

ing in school activities and contacting his friends.

2

Kyle did not engage in a criminal activity that

would warrant an arrest, but engaged in a playful encounter of tug-of-war that consequently

branded him a delinquent.

3

During class, a classmate grabbed a note from Kyle’s notebook, titled

“Hit List.”

4

The teacher took the note from Kyle, and in a teasingly back-and-forth manner,

proceeded to gain control over the note.

5

The teacher laughed; Kyle laughed; even classmates

laughed, but when Kyle realized the encounter was turning serious, he handed over the note.

6

The

teacher left the classroom and moments later, Kyle was escorted to the principal’soffice.

7

Within a

split second, Kyle was placed under arrest and taken to the police station, not for the contents of

the note, but for allegedly assaulting the teacher.

8

The purpose of educational institutions is to provide resources for all children, whether they are

well-mannered or misbehaving.

9

Students labeled as delinquents need more resources from schools

than others.

10

Yet, schools are gradually becoming a pipeline to the juvenile justice system.

11

Kyle’s

Corresponding: rspencefcr@gmail.com

FAMILY COURT REVIEW, Vol. 58 No. 1, January 2020 227–242

© 2020 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts

typical freshman behavior tarnished what respectable reputation he had and stigmatized him as a

criminal for the rest of his life.

12

Kyle’s minor infraction was trumped up to a criminal status,

despite the statements given by classmates corroborating his story and his clean school record.

13

This is the result of zero tolerance policies implemented in Farmington Hill’s high schools.

14

Envision a group of individuals in an institution where they all follow the same routine

schedule.

15

The individuals attend the same meetings and social events together.

16

At any

moment when someone steps out of line, the individuals are separated from the general popula-

tion.

17

Speaking to a higher authority to diffuse the situation is not an option, instead these

individuals are branded as repeat offenders.

18

Now, imagine this as the structure of schools that

implemented zero tolerance policies, which played a hand in the school-to-prison pipeline.

19

The school-to-prison pipeline directly or indirectly tracks students into the juvenile justice sys-

tem by punishing them for minor offenses.

20

This is a real epidemic plaguing schools across

the nation.

21

The implementation of zero tolerance policies in schools blurs the lines between routine disci-

plinary infractions and the juvenile justice system.

22

While the policy’s aim is to preserve the integ-

rity of school systems by removing delinquent students, there is a lack of evidence that zero

tolerance policies create a conducive learning environment.

23

Instead, such policies are particularly

affecting students of color.

24

African American students face suspension and expulsion three times

more than Caucasian students.

25

Students are no longer looking at traditional means of punishment,

but instead are stripped of educational opportunities.

26

This Note proposes a model statute requiring states with a high criminal delinquency rate, to

implement youth courts in public high schools.

27

The proposed statute would shift responsibility

back onto schools, where they will host court sessions for at-risk students.

28

Many states, including

New York, have proposed state legislation to decrease the number of students funneled into the

school-to-prison pipeline.

29

Part II of this Note discusses the history of the school-to-prison pipeline

and how the war on drugs led to the enactment of zero tolerance policies in public schools. This

part will elaborate on specific zero tolerance policies for specific schools. Part III outlines the nega-

tive impact of zero tolerance policies by exploring the presence of police and disparities among race

and disabled students. This part explains some programs that were implemented on the basis of

increasing the school–police presence. Part IV explains the significance of community-based youth

courts, along with legislative support.

Part V proposes an alternative to the traditional juvenile justice system. Part VI is a model statute

specifically implementing school-based youth courts. Part VII will address counterarguments that

may arise regarding funding for youth courts, along with success rates of these newly implemented

school-based youth courts. These counterarguments may entail pushback from educato rs and com-

munity leaders. Part VIII of this Note will conclude by summarizing the benefits of a model statute

mandating school-based youth courts in high schools.

II. ONCE UPON A TIME, IT ALL BEGAN WITH …A HISTORYOF

SCHOOL-TO-PRISON PIPELINE

School systems were designed as gateways to educational opportunities.

30

Some educators are

drawn to the idea of instilling values of intellectual growth onto their students,

31

while other educa-

tors inspire to foster opportunities for disadvantaged youth.

32

Yet, many educators have ostracized

and excluded students who were presumed to fail under a conducive learning environment.

33

These

are the remnants of zero tolerance policies in school systems,

34

the policies intended to create social

order by getting tough on serious disorderly conduct.

35

To the contrary, these policies contribute to

the marginalization

36

of students by feeding them into the school-to-prison pipeline.

37

Zero tolerance policies were first enacted in 1971 under President Nixon’s War on Drugs.

38

The goal was to implement ze ro tolerance pol icies by granting severe cr iminal sanctio ns on indi-

viduals who possessed drugs.

39

Subsequently in 1981, President Reagan made an unprecedented

228 FAMILY COURT REVIEW