School Strictness and Disproportionate Minority Contact

• Author: Anthony A. Peguero,Kay S. Varela,Miner P. “Trey” Marchbanks,Jamilia J. Blake,John Major Eason
• DOI: 10.1177/1541204016680403
• Published date: 01 April 2018
• Date: 01 April 2018
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
2018, Vol. 16(2) 241-259
School Strictness and
ª The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permission:
Disproportionate Minority
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1541204016680403
journals.sagepub.com/home/yvj
Contact: Investigating Racial
and Ethnic Disparities With the
‘‘School-to-Prison Pipeline’’
Miner P. ‘‘Trey’’ Marchbanks III1, Anthony A. Peguero2,
Kay S. Varela3, Jamilia J. Blake4, and John Major Eason3
Abstract
There are racial and ethnic disparities associated with school discipline practices and juvenile justice
contact. In addition, research suggests that stricter school discipline practices and disproportionate
minority contact for minority youth are relatively more prevalent in urban areas. What remains
unknown, however, is the relationship between race and ethnicity, school discipline practices, and
juvenile justice referrals across urban, rural, and suburban schools. Therefore, this study draws from
the Texas Education Agency’s Public Education Information Management System to investigate the
relationship between school discipline practices and juvenile justice contact with a focus on racial
and ethnic disparities in urban, rural, and suburban schools. Findings indicate that both stringent and
lenient school discipline practices have effects on juvenile justice referrals as well as racial and ethnic
disparities across distinct school locations; however, there are important and distinctive nuances
that are presented and examined.
Keywords
school punishment, disproportionate minority contact, race/ethnicity, urbanicity
The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention reports that there were more than 1.6
million arrests of juveniles in the United States in 2010, including 366,000 arrests for property
crimes, 170,000 for drug abuse, and 156,000 for disorderly conduct (Puzzanchera, 2013). Some have
suggested that a growing number of these youth in the juvenile and adult justice systems are being
1 Public Policy Research Institute, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA
2 Department of Sociology, Center for Peace Studies and Violence Prevention, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA
3 Department of Sociology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA
4 Educational Psychology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA
Corresponding Author:
Anthony A. Peguero, Department of Sociology, Center for Peace Studies and Violence Prevention, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg,
VA 24061, USA.
Email: anthony.peguero@vt.edu

---

242
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 16(2)
referred by schools (Gregory, Skiba, & Noguera, 2010; Kim, Losen, & Hewitt, 2012; Kupchik,
2010; Rios, 2011; Rocque & Paternoster, 2011; Rocque & Snellings, In Press). The ‘‘school-to-
prison pipeline’’ is one of the most debated social and educational processes facing the educational
and juvenile justice systems today. In essence, the school-to-prison pipeline process suggests that
‘‘zero-tolerance’’ or stringent punitive school policies, such as detentions, suspensions, and truancy
policies, and the like steer or funnel youth out of schools, increase their likelihood of contact with the
juvenile or adult justice system (Gregory et al., 2010; Kim et al., 2012; Kupchik, 2010; Rios, 2011;
Rocque & Paternoster, 2011; Rocque & Snellings, In Press). Although the school-to-prison pipeline
denotes a direct link between school discipline and adult incarceration, there are arguably a number
of pathways, including educational failure, social exclusion, and juvenile justice contact, that could
facilitate disproportionate criminal justice contact for disciplined youth (Kupchik, 2010; May, 2014;
May, Barranco, Stokes, Haynes, & Robertson, 2018; Rios, 2011; Rocque & Paternoster, 2011;
Shedd, 2015). There is also an overrepresentation of racial and ethnic minority youth, especially
in urban areas, who are being disciplined in schools as well as having contact with the juvenile
justice system (Davis & Sorensen, 2013; Kirk, 2009; May, 2014; Nicholson-Crotty, Birchmeier, &
Valentine, 2009; Rios, 2011; Shedd, 2015). In turn, some argue that disproportionate racial and
ethnic minority juvenile contact, as well as disproportionate school discipline, is reflective of the
process of ‘‘criminalization’’ that minority youth endure within U.S. social institutions such as the
educational and juvenile justice systems (Hirschfield, 2008; Hirschfield & Celinska, 2011; Portillos,
Gonza´lez, & Peguero, 2012; Rios, 2011; Shedd, 2015).
Social, public, and political concerns about violence within schools have fueled the implemen-
tation of harsh or severe school discipline practices (Muschert, Henry, Bracy, & Peguero, 2013;
Muschert & Peguero, 2010). Schools with high levels of racial and ethnic minorities attend schools
that are like ‘‘prisons’’ because these schools sustain increased police presence, security measures,
surveillance, and stringent discipline policies (Noguera, 2008; Portillos et al., 2012; Rios, 2011;
Shedd, 2015). What remains unclear, however, is whether stringent or lenient school discipline
practices, particularly for racial and ethnic minorities across different school locations (i.e., urban,
rural, and suburban), contributes to juvenile justice contact.
This study investigates the relationship between stringent and lenient school discipline practices
on juvenile justice referrals across distinct school locations (i.e., urban, rural, and suburban) as well
as associated racial and ethnic disparities. This study first reviews research that conceptualizes the
link between school discipline and juvenile justice contact across distinct school locations. Data for
this study are drawn from the Texas Education Agency’s (TEA) Public Education Information
Management System (PEIMS) to address two research questions proposed by this study that remain
unanswered by the previous literature. First, is the relationship between school discipline practices
and juvenile justice referrals similar in urban, rural, and suburban contexts? Second, are there racial
and ethnic disparities between school strictness and juvenile justice referrals evident in urban, rural,
and suburban contexts?
The ‘‘School-to-Prison Pipeline’’ and Disproportionate Minority Contact
The school-to-prison pipeline is a conceptual term that is used to depict the policies and practices,
especially with respect to school discipline, in the school and juvenile justice system that decrease
the likelihood of educational opportunities and success for youth while increasing the likelihood
detrimental outcomes such as educational failure and juvenile justice system contact (Kim et al.,
2012; Pantoja, 2013; Rocque & Paternoster, 2011; Skiba, Arredondo, & Williams, 2014). The
school-to-prison pipeline term is also utilized to describe the criminalization of schools as institu-
tions of social control that emphasize security over education (Hirschfield, 2008; Hirschfield &
Celinska, 2011; Rios, 2011; Rocque & Snellings, In Press; Skiba et al., 2014). Some also incorporate

---

‘‘Trey’’ Marchbanks et al.
243
the conceptualization of the school-to-prison pipeline as a mechanism that reproduces racial and
ethnic inequalities by funneling youth out of the educational system and into the juvenile and
criminal justice system (Hirschfield, 2008; Hirschfield & Celinska, 2011; Pantoja, 2013; Rios,
2011; Skiba et al., 2014; Sykes, Piquero, Gioviano, & Pittman, 2015). Although the term
suggests a direct link between schools and incarceration, research has emerged investigating
the direct and indirect paths involved in the school-to-prison pipeline. For example, zero-
tolerance or other stringent school discipline practices may open or ease the pathway of students,
particularly racial and ethnic minorities, toward increased probability of contact with the
juvenile justice system.
There is evidence that schools with high levels of racial and ethnic minorities are ‘‘prison like,’’
as these schools sustain similar features including police presence, security measures, surveillance,
and stringent discipline policies (Kim et al., 2012; May, 2014; Noguera, 2008; Portillos et al., 2012;
Rios, 2011; Shedd, 2015; Skiba et al., 2011). Welch and Payne (2012) argue that school disciplinary
actions tended to be much more punitive in schools with greater levels of racial and ethnic mino-
rities, especially in urban contexts. Moreover, schools with a greater proportion of racial and ethnic
minorities are less likely to use restorative practices in discipline but are more likely to focus on
punitive punishment (e.g., suspension, detention), are more likely to use zero-tolerance policies, are
more likely to use extreme measures of action (e.g., expulsion, police referrals for minor offenses),
and are less likely to refer students with behavioral issues to the school counselor (Welch & Payne,
2010, 2012). In turn, there are mounting concerns, particularly in urban and predominately racial and
ethnic minority schools, with the expanded use of surveillance and security measures, as well as
more stringent school punishment practices. Such practices, including police presence, metal detec-
tors, and zero-tolerance policies, among others, begin to mimic institutional atmospheres, especially
for schools located in disadvantaged or urban areas (Noguera, 2008; Portillos et al., 2012; Rios,
2011; Shedd, 2015). Despite wanting to foster a positive school security experience, scholars have
found that the utilization of police and security measures may give students the impression that their
...