Assignment Prompt & Instructions
In your responses to your peers, consider the alternatives they propose. Do they seem achievable? What gaps do you see? Do you have any ideas that could expand on their initial proposal?
CAMERON POST
I do not agree that strict discipline and zero-tolerance policies automatically create a school-to-prison pipeline. If a student is removed from one school, that does not mean they cannot attend another school or alternative program. Sometimes consequences can help a student realize their behavior needs to change. It is true that there is a disproportionate number of minority and disadvantaged juveniles in the juvenile justice system. However, I do not believe this is caused only by harsh school policies. Poverty, unsafe neighborhoods, lack of resources, family struggles, and community crime also play a major role. On the surface, it may seem like strict school policies are the cause because suspension and expulsion rates are higher in certain schools, as Peak discusses regarding disproportionality. But those policies are often meant to maintain safety and order. To minimize the pipeline or the appearance of one, schools should combine discipline with counseling, mentoring, restorative justice programs, conflict resolution training, and stronger support systems. Schools should keep strong discipline, but they should also focus on helping students grow and address the deeper causes of behavior problems.
DANYEL POST
I do believe that a strong emphasis on discipline and zero tolerance policies in schools with large minority or disadvantaged populations contributes to the school to prison pipeline.The school to prison pipeline is the idea that certain school policies and practices end up pushing students especially those from minority or low-income backgrounds out of the classroom and into the juvenile justice system. From what I’ve read in Elias (2013) and Peak, it’s clear that students from disadvantaged backgrounds are overrepresented in the juvenile justice system. That’s not just a coincidence. It suggests that something deeper is going on.Zero tolerance policies were originally meant to make schools safer, which is an important goal. But over time, these policies have often led to harsh punishments for relatively minor behaviors. Instead of handling issues within the school through conversation or counseling, students are suspended, expelled, or even referred to law enforcement. When students are repeatedly removed from school, they fall behind academically and can start to feel disconnected or labeled as “troublemakers.” That disconnection can increase the chances of them getting into further trouble outside of school.I don’t think strict school policies are the only cause. Poverty, lack of resources, unstable home environments, and limited access to mental health support all play a role. However, when schools respond to students’ struggles with punishment instead of support, it can make those challenges worse. In communities that are already facing disadvantages, this pattern can contribute to higher rates of juvenile justice involvement.To reduce the pipeline, schools should consider alternatives to zero tolerance policies. Restorative justice practices, for example, focus on repairing harm and building accountability rather than just handing out punishment. Programs that support social emotional learning and provide access to counselors can also make a big difference. Students still need structure and clear expectations, but discipline should be fair, consistent, and supportive.Overall, I think discipline is necessary, but when it becomes overly harsh especially in schools serving vulnerable populations it can unintentionally push students toward the justice system instead of helping them succeed. A balanced approach that combines accountability with support would better serve students and communities.