The American Bar Association Joint Task Force on Reversing the Sc

Implicit Bias Training (All)

Implicit bias significantly influences the school-to-prison pipeline, as highlighted in recent Town Halls Ongoing research demonstrates that implicit bias is an inherent aspect of human behavior, measurable through social and neuroscience methods This bias, often unintentional, can lead to the disproportionality issues outlined in the report.

Implicit bias refers to unconscious attitudes or stereotypes that affect our understanding and actions, often without our awareness In the context of the school-to-prison pipeline, many decisions affecting young people are discretionary, creating numerous opportunities for implicit bias to shape these choices, even when made with good intentions.

Research indicates that fostering motivation to change implicit biases is crucial for driving meaningful change To cultivate this motivation, it is essential to understand what implicit bias is and how it influences decisions related to young individuals in education and juvenile justice Training programs can enhance awareness of implicit biases and provide effective de-biasing strategies.

More information: Professor Sarah Redfield, sarah.redfield@gmail.com, or 207-752-1721.

Checklist Implementation (Pima County, Arizona)

In Pima County, Arizona, Guenevere Nelson-Melby leads a collaborative Task Force comprising various stakeholders focused on minimizing student referrals to law enforcement The Task Force has established guidelines designed to discourage schools from involving law enforcement in matters that educators can manage independently and to clarify school conduct codes, thereby addressing potential racial disparities.

More information: Natalie Carrillo, Research & Evaluation Assistant, Pima County

Juvenile Court Center, Tucson, AZ, natalie.carrillo@pcjcc.pima.gov; Guenevere Nelson-Melby, Pima County Public Defender, Nelsonmelby@yahoo.com

Court, School and Law Enforcement Collaborative Task Force:

Guidelines for Schools in Contacting Law Enforcement

** Mandated Report to Law Enforcement & ADE

Call for Law Enforcement Presence

Air Soft Gun^ (dangerous item)  Do not call law enforcement unless they use or threaten someone with it

• The alcohol was not consumed, and

• The alcohol was not shared or sold, and

• You have school security/personnel to handle the situation

Arson, of a structure or property^ 

• It does not cause damage, and

• There are no safety concerns, and

• There was no intent to cause harm Arson, of an occupied structure** 

If unwanted physical contact results in injury, it is essential to call the police, as this act is considered sexual harassment by schools and assault by law enforcement When such violations align with the criteria for sexual harassment involving contact, it is crucial to involve law enforcement for appropriate action.

BB Gun^ (dangerous item)  Do not call law enforcement unless they use or threaten someone with it

Billy Club** (weapon)  Always report, but place online report if police presence is not needed based on the intent and culpability

Brass Knuckles** (weapon)  Always report, but place online report if police presence is not needed based on the intent and culpability

Bullying is not a legal term Call law enforcement if there was a threat, harassment, intimidation, an assault or if the behavior is persistent See notes in appendix A

• Being in a place you are not supposed to be

• With intent of doing something you are not supposed to do See Appendix A or the definitions for more explanation

Burglary (1 st Degree, with a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument)**

Combustible  Do not call for possession, but if it is lit, the violation then becomes a higher offense depending upon which type of combustible it was

 Do not call unless they commit another violation with the computer or telecommunications device (e.g bullying, pornography, threats, etc.) If so, document violation as the other offense

Illegal contraband should be categorized under the relevant violations, such as drugs or weapons For items that are legal but violate school policy, it is essential to specify what those items are without involving law enforcement.

Defiance, Disrespect toward Authority, and Non-

 Do not call unless there is a specified, clear threat to the safety of students, staff or self

Disorderly Conduct  Do not call law enforcement unless there is a specified clear threat to the safety of students, staff or self

Drug Paraphernalia  Call law enforcement if the paraphernalia has residue

• There was no intention to hurt anybody else Then the violation should be classified as recklessness

Extortion  Do not call law enforcement unless there is repeated threat or intimidation

It is important not to contact law enforcement for mutual combat situations; instead, these incidents should be reported to the ADE However, if there are injuries involved or if the encounter was not mutual, it should be classified as assault or aggravated assault.

Graffiti or Tagging  Do not call law enforcement unless:

• Damage exceeds $250, then classify it as vandalism; or

• If it contains hate speech or threats

Harassment, Nonsexual  Do not call law enforcement unless behavior is persistent

Hazing^ Do not call law enforcement unless it is determined that a crime has been committed See notes in Appendix A for further explanation

Public Sexual Indecency^  Call law enforcement if there is a victim Consult with appropriate school personnel to assess the situation

Including: Ecstasy, cocaine, crack, hallucinogens, heroin, marijuana, methamphetamines, etc

Inhalants^  Do not call unless they have used the inhalant

Knife with blades of less than 2.5 inches^ (dangerous item)

 Do not call law enforcement unless they use or threaten someone with it

Knife with blade length of at least 2.5 inches** (weapon)

 Always report, but place online report if police presence is not needed based on the intent and culpability

Violation Guidelines Explanations and Exceptions

Laser pointer^ (dangerous item)  Do not call law enforcement unless they use or threaten someone with it

Leaving School Grounds without Permission  Do not call unless there is a safety concern for the student or it is coupled with other violations that require police contact

Letter Opener^ ( dangerous item)  Do not call unless they use it or threaten someone with it

Mace^ (dangerous item)  Do not call law enforcement unless they use or threaten someone with it

(hitting)  Do not call law enforcement; unless it causes injury, then it should be classified as assault

Network Infraction  Do not call unless the student hacks into the network with intent to access sensitive information

Nunchakus** (weapon)  Always report, but place online report if police presence is not needed based on the intent and culpability

Other Dangerous Item^  Do not call law enforcement unless they use or threaten someone with it

(Inappropriate Use of)  Do not call for possession It is not illegal to possess If it is a medical emergency, then call 911 See Appendix

Paintball Gun^ (dangerous  Do not call law enforcement unless they use or threaten someone

Pellet Gun^ (dangerous item)  Do not call law enforcement unless they use or threaten someone with it

Do not call law enforcement unless:

• The student is distributing pornographic material

• Any of the people in the pornographic material are known to the student

• The pornography is of a minor

• The student has a prescription in their name and

Recklessness  Do not call law enforcement If the violation is serious enough to call police, then the violation should be classified as endangerment

Robbery^  Call law enforcement unless there is a low level of threat and force

Sexual Harassment ^  Do not call law enforcement unless:

• The victim feels threatened by the behavior Sexual Harassment with

Simulated Firearm  Do not call law enforcement unless:

• They were using it to threaten others, and

• It cannot be discerned whether it is real or not

Illicit Drug  Call law enforcement, unless it can be determined that the substance is legal

(dangerous item)  Do not call law enforcement unless they use or threaten someone with it

Tear Gas^ (dangerous item)  It is not available for purchase, so law enforcement agencies want to be notified if anyone is in possession of it

Theft (Petty)  Do not call if items are valued at less than $100

Theft  Call law enforcement if value of the items is more than $100 If it is personal property, the owner needs to make the report, not the school

Threat or Intimidation^  Call law enforcement unless there is no intent of harm

Do not call law enforcement unless:

• It is a student who was expelled or suspended for a serious violation, or

• The person has already been warned and will not leave, or

• There is a specified, clear threat

Unknown Drug**  Call law enforcement if substance cannot be identified

Property^  Victim must call the police, the school should not call for them

Property^   Call law enforcement unless damage is under $250 If no suspect, place an online report

Law Student/Lawyer Intervention (Sufeo, Massachusetts Model)

The Massachusetts legal community has adopted a comprehensive strategy to address key issues, with further details provided by Marlies Spanjaard, Director of Education Advocacy at The EdLaw Project For more information, she can be contacted at mspanjaard@publiccounsel.net or 617-910-.

SUFEO Stand Up For Each Other

This program was introduced at the first Town Hall and reviewed again at the New Orleans Town Hall It is a program that has also been adopted in Chicago

Stand Up for Each Other! (SUFEO) is an advocacy organization comprised of law students from Tulane University Law School and Loyola University Law School in New Orleans, along with a project at Loyola School of Law in Chicago While the New Orleans and Chicago groups work independently, they collaborate to achieve a shared objective: minimizing student suspensions and ensuring that students remain in school and avoid the criminal justice system.

SUFEO advocates provide comprehensive support for students appealing suspensions or expulsions, guiding them and their parents through every step of the process They offer advice on initiating appeals, investigate the circumstances surrounding disciplinary actions, and represent students in administrative hearings Additionally, both sites feature a 24/7 hotline for youth and parents seeking assistance with school suspensions and expulsions.

The law students that run the SUFEO groups are aided by attorneys from organizations like the Louisiana Center for Children’s Rights, which collaborates with the New

The Orleans SUFEO Center has successfully assisted over 100 students in nearly fifty cases, achieving a high rate of successful appeals Beyond direct support for students and parents, SUFEO's advocacy efforts have highlighted alarming suspension and expulsion rates in Louisiana schools, bringing critical attention to the negative impacts of state legislation within the political discourse.

For references as quoted and more information, see

STAND UP FOR EACH OTHER! , http://sufeo.org/

Suspension Advocacy Project, LOY.U.CHI.SCH.L.:CIVITAS CHILDLAW CTR http://www.luc.edu/law/centers/childlaw/institutes/child_education/suspensionad vocacyproject/

Tavis Smiley, The “Community” Element of Education, PBS:TAVIS SMILEY REP (last modified Apr 11, 2013), http://www.pbs.org/wnet/tavissmiley/tsr/education-under- arrest/the-community-element-of-education/

In 2012, the Institute for Restorative Justice and Restorative Dialogue (IRJRD), under the leadership of Dr Marilyn Armour, collaborated with Ed H White Middle School in San Antonio, Texas, to launch a Restorative Discipline program This initiative aimed to minimize exclusionary disciplinary practices such as suspension and expulsion for sixth, seventh, and eighth-grade students As a result of this program, total student suspensions at White Middle School decreased by an impressive 44%.

Research indicates that implementing restorative practices in schools can significantly reduce suspension rates, with a noted 57% decrease by the second year of the program Dr Armour highlights that this relational approach enhances school climate and student behavior by promoting belonging, social engagement, and meaningful accountability rather than exclusion and punishment An evaluation of Restorative Discipline at White Middle School also revealed substantial academic improvements, particularly among African American students, who demonstrated notable gains in math and reading.

For the points quoted here and further information see MARILYN ARMOUR, ED

WHITE MIDDLE SCHOOL RESTORATIVE DISCIPLINE EVALUATION:IMPLEMENTATION AND

The IMPACT 12 report from 2014 highlights significant findings related to restorative discipline in Texas schools, as detailed in the document available at the University of Texas at Austin's Center for Social Work Research Additionally, the Texas Schools Restorative Discipline Project, also hosted by U.T Austin's School of Social Work, emphasizes the importance of implementing restorative practices to improve student behavior and school climate For more information, visit the project's website.

Dr Armour can be reached at marmour@utexas.edu

1 Easy Access to the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement: 1997-2013, OFFICE OF

JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION, http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezacjrp/asp/selection.asp (select “Race”; “Most

Serious Offense General”; “12 or younger”; click “Show Table”) (last visited Jan 25,

This report incorporates insights from Jason P Nance's forthcoming article, "Dismantling the School-to-Prison Pipeline: Tools for Change," published in the Arizona State Law Journal For further details, visit the SSRN link provided.

Police, and the School-to-Prison Pipeline, 93 WASH.U.L.REV (forthcoming), http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id%77333

3 Hawes Spencer, Child Handcuffed and School Policies Questioned, NPRRADIO (Dec 9, 2014); see also Melinda D Anderson, When Schooling Meets Policing, THE ATLANTIC (Sept

21, 2015) (cumulating similar incidents of police involvement with schools); Tunette Powell, My Son Has Been Suspended Five Times He’s 3., WASH.POST:POSTEVERYTHING

(July 24, 2014), https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/07/24/my-son-has- been-suspended-five-times-hes-3/

4 See Hawker v Sandy City Corp., 774 F.3d 1243, 1245 (10th Cir 2014) (Lucero, J., concurring) (quoting Jason P Nance, School Surveillance and the Fourth Amendment, 2014

WIS.L.REV 79, 83 (2014)); U.S.DEP’T OF JUSTICE &U.S.DEP’T OF EDUC.,DEAR COLLEAGUE

LETTER ON NONDISCRIMINATORY ADMINISTRATION OF SCHOOL DISCIPLINE 4 (Jan 8, 2014), http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201401-title-vi.pdf [hereinafter DEAR COLLEAGUE LETTER]

5 See U.S.DEP’T OF EDUC.OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS,CIVIL RIGHTS DATA COLLECTION,DATA

SNAPSHOT:SCHOOL DISCIPLINE (2014), http://ocrdata.ed.gov/Downloads/CRDC-

Recent research by Nance highlights a concerning trend of increased school-based arrests across various states and school districts nationwide, emphasizing the growing issue of the school-to-prison pipeline.

7 See, e.g., FLA.STATE CONFERENCE NAAPC,ADVANCEMENT PROJECT &NAACPLEGAL

DEFENSE AND EDUC.FUND,INC.,ARRESTING DEVELOPMENT:ADDRESSING THE SCHOOL

DISCIPLINE CRISIS IN FLORIDA 6 (2006) [hereinafter ARRESTING DEVELOPMENT], http://b.3cdn.net/advancement/e36d17097615e7c612_bbm6vub0w.pdf (stating that

103 during the 2004–2005 school year, there were 26,990 school-based referrals to the

Florida Department of Juvenile Justice and seventy-six percent of those referrals were for disorderly conduct, trespassing, and fighting without a weapon); A CTION FOR

CHILDREN,FROM PUSH OUT TO LOCK UP:NORTH CAROLINA’S ACCELERATED SCHOOL-TO-

PRISON PIPELINE 9–10 (2013), http://www.ncchild.org/wp- content/uploads/2014/05/2013_STPP-FINAL.pdf (“Students were most commonly referred to the juvenile justice system for low-level offenses.”); JUSTICE POLICY INST.,

EDUCATION UNDER ARREST:THE CASE AGAINST POLICE IN SCHOOLS 15 (2011) [hereinafter

During the 2007-08 school year in Jefferson County, Alabama, a staggering ninety-six percent of students referred to juvenile court faced misdemeanor charges, primarily for offenses such as disorderly conduct and fighting without a weapon, highlighting the concerning intersection of education and juvenile justice.

8 For example, the number of students in secondary schools suspended or expelled increased from one in thirteen in 1972–1973 to one in nine in 2009–2010 See JACOB

KANG-BROWN ET AL.,VERA INST OF JUST.,AGENERATION LATER:WHAT WE’VE LEARNED

ABOUT ZERO TOLERANCE IN SCHOOLS 2 (2013), http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/zero-tolerance-in- schools-policy-brief.pdf

9 See U.S.DEP’T OF EDUC.OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS, supra note 5

10 See TONY FABELO ET AL.,BREAKING SCHOOLS’RULES:ASTATEWIDE STUDY OF HOW

S CHOOL D ISCIPLINE R ELATES TO S TUDENTS ’SUCCESS AND J UVENILE J USTICE I NVOLVEMENT

A report from 2011 reveals that 97 percent of suspensions and expulsions in Texas were for offenses that did not legally necessitate such actions This highlights significant issues within the disciplinary practices in Texas schools, suggesting a need for reform to align disciplinary measures with legal requirements For further details, refer to the report by the Council of State Governments Justice Center.

A sound discipline policy is essential for fostering successful schools, as it addresses racial disparities that can lead to a positive impact for all students Research indicates that most suspensions and expulsions are issued for minor offenses, highlighting the need for reform in disciplinary practices By disrupting the school-to-prison pipeline, educational institutions can create a more equitable environment that benefits every student.

Zero tolerance policies in schools have led to extreme disciplinary actions, including suspensions and expulsions for seemingly minor infractions, such as shooting a paperclip with a rubber band or bringing a manicure kit to school This approach raises concerns about the appropriateness and effectiveness of such strict measures in educational environments.

A review by the Psychologists Association Zero Tolerance Task Force highlights the questionable effectiveness of zero tolerance policies in schools Notably, the case of a ten-year-old girl who was expelled for having a small knife in her lunchbox, intended for cutting an apple, raises concerns about the appropriateness of such strict measures Additionally, the expulsion of a student for talking on a cell phone to his deployed mother, whom he had not spoken to in thirty days, further illustrates the potential pitfalls of these policies.

11 See generally HOUSE COMM ON OVERSIGHT AND GOV’T REFORM,STATEMENT SUBMITTED

BY LIZ RYAN YOUTH FIRST!INITIATIVE (July 15, 2015), https://oversight.house.gov/wp- content/uploads/2015/07/Ryan-YouthFirst-Statement-7-15-Criminal-Justice-II-

COMPLETE.pdf (summarizing the data); Press Release, Office of the Press Sec’y,

Presidential Proclamation—National Youth Justice Awareness Month, 2015, THE WHITE

H OUSE , (Sept 30, 2015), https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press- office/2015/09/30/presidential-proclamation-national-youth-justice-awareness-month-

12 DANIEL J.LOSEN &JONATHAN GILLESPIE,OPPORTUNITIES SUSPENDED:THE DISPARATE

Disciplinary exclusion from school significantly impacts students, often leading to negative long-term consequences Research indicates that such exclusion can increase the likelihood of involvement in the juvenile justice system, contributing to the school-to-prison pipeline The findings highlight the urgent need for schools to adopt alternative disciplinary measures that promote positive behavior and engagement rather than exclusion Addressing these issues is crucial for fostering a supportive educational environment and ensuring equitable opportunities for all students.

13 Population Estimates,U.S.CENSUS BUREAU, https://www.census.gov/popest/data/counties/asrh/2012/PEPSR6H.html (last visited Jan 14, 2016)

14 See supra Figure 3; see also infra Figures 4 & 5

15 See U.S.DEP’T OF EDUC.OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS, supra note 5, at 1–6; LOSEN &

GILLESPIE , supra note 12, at 6 (finding that one out of every six Black students enrolled in

K–12 public schools has been so suspended at least once, but only one out of twenty White students has been suspended)

Tiêu đề	The American Bar Association Joint Task Force on Reversing the School-to-Prison Pipeline Preliminary Report
Tác giả	Sarah E. Redfield, Jason P. Nance
Trường học	University of Florida Levin College of Law
Chuyên ngành	Criminal Law, Education Law, Juvenile Law
Thể loại	preliminary report
Năm xuất bản	2016
Thành phố	Gainesville

Định dạng
Số trang	168
Dung lượng	3,93 MB