Abstract

Excerpted From: Jasmine Richardson-Rushin, Angelica Jimenez, Gwendolyn Walker and Hannah Benton Eidsath, Targeted and Ticketed: Student Ticketing and the Perpetuation of the School-to-Prison Pipeline, 22 UC Law Journal of Race and Economic Justice 3 (January, 2025) (175 Footnotes) (Full Document)

As a term, the “school-to-prison pipeline” gained widespread use in the early 21st century as a shorthand for policies and practices that push students out of school and towards incarceration. It is a disturbing national trend wherein students (many of whom are Black or Brown, or have disabilities, or histories of poverty, abuse, or neglect) are siphoned out of schools and into the juvenile, municipal and criminal legal systems. Though the term itself would seem to be a part of the modern zeitgeist, the phenomenon's origins can be traced back to the creation of the society in which it is perpetuated. Education, both in its access and ideals, has often reflected the ideals and access of the society in which it exists. If the fabric of society is woven with a devotion to capitalism and staunch adherence to caste systems, the educational institutions within that society often reproduce and replicate those paradigms. Thus, to discuss schooldiscipline, one must do so within the context of society's driving factors.

Schooldiscipline, both in its language and application, perpetuates the idea that children from historically marginalized communities are the lowest rung of society. Be it ethnic, racial, ability, or class differences, it is all too common that schools approach discipline in palpably different ways based on a student's identity. This is especially true when there is already inequity in educational processes in areas as diverse as tracking, representation in curriculum, quality of instruction, physical resources, and school funding. As research surrounding the school-to-prison-pipeline expands, evidence supports two general concepts regarding student discipline: one, that the presence of Student Resource Officers (SROs) increases the school's likelihood that school-based behaviors will be reported to law enforcement agencies; and, two, that reporting schooldiscipline to law enforcement agencies disproportionately affects Black, Brown, and Indigenous students, and students with disabilities.

Though policing in schools dates back to as early as 1939, increased police presence in schools garnered federal support through President Lyndon B. Johnson's establishment of the Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. The Commission released a racially-charged report in 1967 claiming that Black youth “account for a disproportionate number of arrests” and asserting that youth were the largest threat to public safety. This report allowed for considerable attention to be placed on Black youth and ““continual youth warfare,” and set the context for local law enforcement agencies to apply for federal funding to increase policing in schools and increase targeting of Black, Brown, and Indigenous students.

Over time, in areas in which Black, Brown, Indigenous and poor students made up much of the population, there became an increasing number of SROs in those school districts, not because there existed a need for more safety in these areas. With an increased presence of SROs, educators and administration are now more likely to involve law enforcement intervention for discipline issues that were previously handled by the school. According to the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights, during the 2020-2021 school year, Black students represented 15% of total K-12 student enrollment, but 18% of students who were referred to law enforcement, and 22% of students subjected to school-related arrests. Students with disabilities served under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) represented 14% of total K-12 student enrollment, but 22% of students referred to law enforcement, and 22% of students who were subjected to school-related arrests. These early contacts with law enforcement are particularly harmful to Black students for whom police contact leads to an increased likelihood of arrest as young adults.

The U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights found similar disparities in exclusionary schooldiscipline: Black boys represented 8% of total K-12 student enrollment, but 15% of students who received one or more in-schoolsuspensions, 18% of those who received one or more out-of-schoolsuspensions, and 18% of those who were expelled. Black girls represented 7% of total K-12 student enrollment, but 8% of students who received one or more in-schoolsuspensions, 9% of students who received one or more out-of-schoolsuspensions, and 8% of students who were expelled. Students with disabilities served under IDEA represented 14% of total K-12 student enrollment, but accounted for 18% of students who received one or more in-schoolsuspensions, 24% of students who received one or more out-of-schoolsuspensions, and 17% of students who received expulsions. Students with disabilities served only under Section 504 represented 3% of total K-12 student enrollment but represented 6% of students who received one or more in-schoolsuspensions, 5% of students who received one or more out-of-schoolsuspensions, and 4% of students who received expulsions.

As reflected above, studies examining the school-to-prison pipeline make the link between harsh disciplinary practices, even for minor and normal childhood behavior, and future incarceration. Less attention has been paid to another emerging and disturbing trend where students receive municipal tickets or citations for behavior that may technically violate a municipal ordinance but could be handled within the school disciplinary system. Unlike cases in the juvenile or criminal legal systems, youth usually are not afforded the right to appointed counsel in municipal ordinance violation hearings. While the use and efficacy of municipal ordinance hearings vary in different jurisdictions, municipal courts can often levy significant fines and fees on youth. Failure to pay these fines and fees can cause families to go further into debt and face more financial consequences, such as late fees and interest charged, wage garnishment, or driver's license suspension. Even worse, youth may be subject to detention or arrest, or face charges in juvenile or criminal court for failure to pay outstanding municipal ordinance debts. As a result, youth would become further involved with the legal system, not for any subsequent “delinquent” or “criminal” behavior, but simply because they are impoverished.

This article will examine the intersection of school disciplinary practices and municipal fees and fines in three states: Texas, Illinois, and Colorado. The financial penalties from ticketing students for school-based behavior can be significant and follow these youth into adulthood and can lead to further involvement in the legal system. Furthermore, fines and fees have not been empirically proven to change behavior, whilst restorative justice and evidence-based programs have shown to reduce infractions. We will also explore different advocacy strategies developed to end the harmful practice of student ticketing including legal challenges and legislative reform. Finally, we will look at evidence-based and developmentally appropriate alternatives to address behavior and propose that these methods, not pushing youth into another punitive legal system, will result in positive behavioral change and better support our students.

[. . .]

But what happens when a state or school district still allows for students to be ticketed as a form of schooldiscipline? As reflected in the above case studies, there are multiple advocacy strategies that can be implemented to combat this phenomenon. As partially described above, civil rights complaints can be filed with:

• the United States Department of Education OCR alleging violations of statutes connected to its funding (Title VI, Title IX and Section 504);

• the United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division alleging violations of statutes connected to its funding (most likely granted to police departments or, in some instances, municipal courts) or statutes that DOJ enforces (e.g., EEOA, ADA, Title IV);

• the State Educational Agency either alleging violations of IDEA or, in some states, state law; and

• in some states, with the state civil rights commission or the state attorney general.

Depending on facts and evidence available, student plaintiffs or organizational plaintiffs may also be able to litigate these federal claims on their own behalf; in some states, it may be possible to bring a state claim under the state constitutional right to education or under a state civil rights statute.

We have to look at not only the impact of the students being ticketed, but also the disproportionality of who is being targeted and criminalized. Black, Brown and Indigenous students and students with disabilities go to school feeling less safe and more scrutinized with police officers in their school. The data substantiates their fear. Taking a student out of school and requiring them to attend court hearings curbs the future potential even outside of the educational sphere. For youth to grow into adults that are able to experience the fullness of what life is, we as a society have to fiercely protect their educational opportunities and treat youth as the learners and students they are.