Advancement Project School-to-Prison-Pipeline Position Paper

8/7/2019 Advancement Project School-to-Prison-Pipeline Position Paper

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/advancement-project-school-to-prison-pipeline-position-paper 1/10

Federal Policy,ESEA Reauthorization,

and the

School-to-Prison Pipeline

A joint position paper of:



Federal Policy, ESEA Reauthorization,and the School-to-Prison Pipeline

A joint position paper of:Advancement Project

Education Law Center - PAFairTest

The Forum for Education and DemocracyJuvenile Law Center

NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

March 2011 (Revised)

In the nine years since Congress reauthorized theElementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), startlinggrowth has occurred in what is often described as the“School-to-Prison Pipeline” 1 – the use of educationalpolicies and practices that have the effect of pushingstudents, especially students of color and studentswith disabilities, out of schools and toward the juve-nile and criminal justice systems. This phenomenon

has proved incredibly damaging to students, families,and communities. It has also proved tremendouslycostly, not only in terms of lost human potential butalso in dollars, as states struggle with the soaringcosts of police, courts, and incarceration amidstcontinuing economic dif culties. Yet far too littleemphasis is being placed upon the pipeline crisis,its causes, and its consequences within most of thediscussion around federal education policy and thereauthorization of the ESEA.

The swelling of the pipeline has many causes. But

as Congress works to reauthorize the ESEA, it isessential to examine how NCLB itself has contributedto the pipeline phenomenon. Congress designedNCLB to hold schools accountable for studentperformance, correctly paying speci c attention todifferentials in outcomes by race, socioeconomicstatus, disability, and English language pro ciency.However, the law focused its accountability frame-work almost exclusively on students’ standardizedtest performance, placed punitive sanctions onstruggling schools without providing enough tools

to actually improve their performance, and failed toaddress signi cant funding and resource disparitiesamong our nation’s schools. As a result, NCLB hadthe effect of encouraging low-performing schoolsto meet benchmarks by narrowing curriculum andinstruction and de-prioritizing the educationalopportunities of many students. Indeed, No ChildLeft Behind’s “get-tough” approach to accountabilityhas led to more students being left even further

behind, thus feeding the dropout crisis and theSchool-to-Prison Pipeline.

The pending reauthorization of the ESEA presentsan opportunity to broaden and strengthen the law’saccountability structure – not in ways that punishstudents and schools, but in ways that safeguard allstudents’ opportunities to learn by more accuratelyassessing schools’ strengths and weaknesses andbetter targeting funding for school improvement.Moreover, a revised ESEA could, through af rmativemeasures, bolster graduation rates and academic

achievement by addressing the policies and practicesthat have resulted in the overuse of punitive discipline,school exclusion, and justice-system intervention.

Our organizations have decades of experience workingto improve school performance and increase edu-cational opportunities while reducing the ow of children and youth from schools to the juvenile andcriminal justice systems. We have come together tourge greater attention to the pipeline crisis, and tosuggest how it should be addressed within federalpolicy.

Introduction



To begin dismantling the School-to-Prison Pipeline,improve the quality of education offered in ournation’s schools, and ensure that students’ opportuni-

ties to learn are protected, Congress should:

• Create a stronger and more effective school andstudent assessment and accountability systemcapable of recognizing success in a variety of forms and better able to provide useful infor-mation for school improvement.

• Provide funding and incentives aimed at improvingschool climate, reducing the use of exclusionarydiscipline, and limiting the ow of students from

schools to the juvenile and criminal justice systems.

• Facilitate the re-enrollment, re-entry, and propereducation of students returning to school fromexpulsion and juvenile justice system placements.

Summary of Our Recommendations for ESEA Reauthorization

What is the School-to-Prison Pipeline?The School-to-Prison Pipeline re ers to the set o policies and practices that make thecriminalization and incarceration o children and youth more likely and the attainmento a high-quality education less likely. It is the emphasis o punitive consequences,student exclusion, and justice-system intervention over students’ right to an education.And while it is a ecting more students in more communities than ever be ore, itcontinues to all hardest on students o color and students with disabilities.

The School-to-Prison Pipeline operates both directly and indirectly. Through themisapplication o zero-tolerance school discipline, schools directly send children andyouth into the juvenile and criminal system by criminalizing a wide variety o studentbehavior. The dramatic increase in the use o these extremely severe disciplinarypractices has resulted in hundreds o thousands o arrests and re errals o students tothe juvenile and criminal justice system each year. Many – and perhaps most – o theseschool-based arrests are or misdemeanor o enses that do not pose a serious, ongoingthreat to school sa ety and would once have been addressed by a teacher or principalbut are now alling to the police and juvenile courts.

Schools indirectly push students into the School-to-Prison Pipeline through policiesand practices that limit their opportunities to learn and make them more likely todrop out o school and ultimately wind up being incarcerated. Examples includeout-o -school suspension, expulsion, high-stakes testing, re erral to alternative schoolsthat have in erior educational programs, and the ailure to re-integrate studentsreturning rom expulsions and placements in the juvenile justice system. The sharprise in the use o all o these practices in communities across the country over the lastdecade represents a prioritization o swi t and severe punishment o students overthe thought ul consideration o how to better meet their educational needs, such asthrough academic and disciplinary interventions, counseling services, health services,special education programs, and other “wraparound” services. As a result, hugenumbers o students have been put on a path to academic ailure that is difcultto interrupt and o ten has devastating long-term consequences.



When the original ESEA was passed in 1965, itrepresented a landmark achievement in addressinginequitable educational opportunities experienced

by poor children and children of color. 2 After beingreauthorized and modi ed seven times over the last35 years, ESEA now contains provisions that actuallycontribute to those inequities. For example, thecurrent version – NCLB – has bolstered the expan-sion of the School-to-Prison Pipeline in several ways.

First, by focusing so heavily on standardized test-ing as a metric for accountability, and by attachinghigh-stakes consequences to the results of these tests,NCLB creates an extremely narrow de nition of educational success. As a result of mandates to raise

student test scores, districts, schools, administrators,and teachers are under enormous pressure to pro-duce results. This pressure has actually given schoolsa perverse incentive to encourage or facilitate thedeparture or removal of lower-performing students. 3 Unfortunately, many schools across the country havedone just that by assigning such students to alterna-tive schools, encouraging or coercing them to dropout or enroll in General Educational Development(GED) programs, removing them from attendancerolls, or improperly using exclusionary schooldiscipline methods such as suspension, expulsion,and arrest. 4

Second, the overemphasis on standardized testinghas led to narrower and weaker curricula in schoolsnationwide, with substantially more class time beingdevoted to test preparation at the expense of richerand more well-rounded instruction. 5 This, in turn,has led to increased student disengagement andalienation, both of which foster disruptive behaviorand lead to increased use of exclusionary discipline. 6

Third, NCLB has played an important role in theexpansion of the path from schools directly to thejustice system. Due to the dynamics described above,schools have relied increasingly on police and juve-nile courts to handle school disciplinary matters. 7 NCLB funds support the hiring of school-based lawenforcement personnel, and the law encourages thereferral of students to law enforcement for school-based behavior. 8 While there are legitimate purposesfor these sections of the law, in practice they have toooften contributed to the needless criminalization of children and youth.

Fourth, NCLB has not adequately addressed thechallenges facing disconnected youth, especiallystudents attempting to re-enter school once they have

left or been pushed out. 9 Enrollment barriers aimedat keeping out “problem” students, dif culties withtransferring credits, and the perverse incentives forpushing students out of school discussed above havemade it extremely dif cult for these young people toresume their education. 10

All of these factors have contributed to dramaticallyincreased use of exclusionary discipline and worsen-ing graduation rates. 11 In fact, our national suspensionand expulsion rates are at all-time highs, and bothhave risen dramatically since 2002 – the year NCLB

was enacted. 12 The expanded role of police in schooldisciplinary matters has led to a sharp rise in thecriminalization of children and adolescents forrelatively minor, developmentally normative behavior. 13 And our national graduation rate is at its lowest levelsince 2000-01. 14

While these dynamics are affecting students nation-wide, they have been especially damaging for studentsof color and students with disabilities. Indeed, asthe rates of punitive discipline have increased, racialdisparities have only continued to widen. 15 Forexample, Black students are now three times as likelyto be suspended and three-and-a-half times as likelyto be expelled as their White students. 16 These racialdisciplinary disparities are mirrored by disparities inacademic achievement, as graduation rates continueto be far lower for students of color than for theirpeers. 17

The dramatic rise in the use of high-stakes testingand “zero-tolerance” school discipline should beespecially alarming because we now have ample evi-dence thatboth of these approaches have been largelyunsuccessful in achieving their intended results. Forexample, the use of narrow, test-based accountabilitymechanisms has not produced widespread and mean-ingful school improvements. 18 And zero-toleranceschool discipline has not been shown to make schoolssafer or improve academic achievement; in fact, itmay be having the opposite effects. 19 In short, eventhe most simple cost-bene t analysis demonstratesthe failure of these approaches.

How the “No Child Left Behind” Act Contributes to the School-to-Prison Pipeline



This is an eminently xable problem. There is a wealthof research and evidence-based “best practices” onwhich educators can rely to increase student achieve-ment and address the School-to-Prison Pipeline; allthat remains is implementing these alternative policiesand practices more fully and taking them to scale.

While the current ESEA and other federal initiativesprovide grant funds for voluntary programs aimedat addressing some of these issues, these efforts havefailed to address the root causes of the pipeline, dolittle to limit unnecessary school removal, and reachtoo few students. The reauthorized version of ESEAsimply must go further in protecting and enhancingthe opportunities to learn for all children and youth.

To ensure that students are not forced from schools,and to foster safe and engaging learning environments,Congress should revise and strengthen the ESEA’s

accountability structure. The public needs accurateand reliable information on how schools are perform-ing; however, for accountability to be meaningful, itmust go far beyond the narrow approach of NCLB.Every parent and student knows that standardizedtest results do not encapsulate what goes on inside aschool – the educational process is far too complex forthat. Thus, the determination of school quality shouldnot place undue weight on standardized test scores,but rather should include a range of variables thatwill both provide a more complete picture to thecommunity and avoid the negative consequences of the NCLB approach.

In addition, NCLB’s use of sanctions to compel schoolimprovement must be adjusted. Struggling schoolsneed guidance and support to meet the needs of theirstudents, not the rigid and punitive consequencescurrently favored. The revised accountability

structure should use multiple measures to highlightwhat schools do well, better identify problem areas,and target the use of federal funds to strengthenoverall school quality. 21

A revised ESEA should also place much more

emphasis on the school climate and behavior-supportissues that currently contribute to the School-to-Prison Pipeline. School discipline data should beincluded in the revised accountability framework,and additional funds should be targeted towardefforts to limit school exclusion and reduce the owof students from schools to the justice system. Manyschool districts are already implementing the sortsof approaches that the reauthorized ESEA couldsupport, and are demonstrating that these approachesare better at promoting academic success and schoolsafety than zero-tolerance approaches, while also

being more cost-effective. 22

For example, a number of districts – large and small,rural, urban, and suburban – have signi cantl changedtheir disciplinary policies and practices by empha-sizing prevention and non-exclusionary interventionstrategies over exclusionary discipline, with extreme-ly positive results. 23 Educators have reported overalldecreases in exclusionary discipline and justice-systemintervention, progress in closing racial disciplinarydisparities, and increased academic achievement. 24 And in some communities, coalitions of stakehold-ers – including juvenile courts, school districts, lawenforcement agencies, and social service providers –have come together to reduce spiraling school arrestrates for incidents that do not merit police interven-tion or referral to juvenile court. 25 These efforts couldeasily be replicated in other communities, to greateffect, with some additional support from the federalgovernment.

ESEA Can Be Revised to Begin Dismantling the School-to-Prison Pipeline

Thus, the next version of ESEA must rectify the devia-tion from the law’s original purpose and re-prioritizethe expansion of high-quality educational opportunities.And while the reauthorized law should retain the posi-tive aspects of NCLB’s accountability structure – suchas reporting and accountability based on students’ race,gender, 20 socioeconomic status, disability, and English

pro ciency – major changes to NLCB are requiredif we are to make meaningful progress in addressingour biggest educational challenge: our unconsciona-bly low graduation rates and achievement levels forpoor children, children of color, and children withdisabilities.



• Base evaluations of students, teachers, schools,and systems on multiple sources of diverseevidence, of which standardized test resultsconstitute only a small portion. These indicatorsshould include information on school resources,processes, outcomes, and improvement efforts(while still being disaggregated by race, gender,socioeconomic status, disability, and Englishpro ciency). 26

We recommend that Congress take the following steps to begin dismantling the School-to-Prison Pipeline:

1. Create a stronger and more effective school and student assessment and accountability systemcapable of recognizing success in a variety of forms and better able to provide useful information

for school improvement.• Provide for school quality review systems that

engage teams of experts in assessing schoolperformance by examining a range of quantita-tive and qualitative factors, including classroomand school management, student access to highlyeffective teachers, strong teaching, student learn-ing across the full curriculum, school climate, andfacilities. The teams would then recommendinterventions that the school would receiveassistance to implement. 27

Recommendations

• Support the development of new assessmentsystems that include classroom-based evidenceand extensive use of performance assessments.These new assessments should be made part of public reporting and accountability, and shouldbe used for improving teaching and learning. 28

• Decrease the standardized testing burden onstates, schools, and districts by allowing statesto assess students annually in selected grades inelementary schools, middle schools, and highschools.

• Replace punitive sanctions with school improve -ment efforts supported by research and practice. 29

• Collect and report (on an annual basis) school-leveldisciplinary and climate data – disaggregated byrace, gender, disability status, socioeconomicstatus, and English pro ciency – from all schoolsand districts, including all charter schools andalternative schools. 30

• Establish a process by which unusually highdisciplinary rates – as well as pronounceddisparities in such rates along race, gender,disability, socioeconomic status, and languagelines – trigger required technical assistance andsupport, rather than punishment, from state andlocal educational agencies. 31 The goal should be toensure that schools showing these characteristicsadopt proven, positive approaches to improvingschool climate and limiting school exclusion.

2. Provide funding and incentives aimed at improving school climate, reducing the use of exclusionary discipline, and limiting the ow of students from schools to the juvenile and criminal justice systems.

• Increase the availablity of federal funds to replace

exclusionary methods of discipline with: (a) prov-en and promising school-based discipline frame-works to be implemented in a culturally relevantmanner, such as School-Wide Positive BehaviorSupport (SWPBS) and restorative justice pro-grams; and (b) greater reliance on school-basedmental health providers, such as school socialworkers, school psychologists, school counselors,and school nurses. 32

• Provide federal funding for comprehensive local or

regional strategies involving multiple stakeholders– including, but not limited to, schools, the justicesystem, parents, and students – to reduce the use of exclusionary discipline and the number of studentsentering the juvenile and criminal justice systems.



It is imperative that Congress take signi cant steps toaddress the causes and consequences of the School-to-Prison Pipeline. For too long, federal law and pol-icy have contributed to the creation of the unhealthy,unproductive, and even hostile learning environmentsthat fuel the pipeline.

This crisis has been truly devastating for children,families, and communities, and it has contributed tothe creation of an oversized justice system that strainslocal and state budgets across the country. The ESEAreauthorization provides a not-to-be-missed oppor-tunity to craft needed solutions and make a smart,long-term investment in our youth by creating a morejust educational system.

Conclusion

3. Facilitate reenrollment, reentry, and proper education of students returning to school fromexpulsion and juvenile justice system placements.

• Require that states establish procedures for assess -

ment and identi cation of students’ learning needsupon entry into juvenile detention facilities.

• Require that states establish procedures for theprompt reenrollment of students in schools uponreturn from expulsion and juvenile justice place-ment, and for facilitating the transfer of creditsearned during placement.

• Provide federal funding for innovative practices

aimed at ensuring the educational success of students reentering school from expulsion andjuvenile justice placements.

Recommendations (continued)



1 See generally AdvAncement Project , t est , Punish , And Pushout : h ow “Z ero -t olerAnce ” And h igh -s tAkes t esting Funnel Youth into the “s chool -to -P rison PiPeline ” (2010), available at http://www.advancementproject.org/sites/default/ les/publications/rev_ n.pdf ; nAAcP l egAl d eFense And e ducAtionAl Fund , i nc ., d ismAntling the s chool -to -P rison PiPeline (2005), available at http://www.naacpldf.org/ les/publications/Dismantling_the_School_to_ Prison_Pipeline.pdf.

2 The original text of the Elementary and SecondaryEducation Act of 1965 stated that the purpose of the Actwas to “provide nancial assistance . . . to local educationalagencies serving areas with concentrations of childrenfrom low-income families to expand and improve their educational programs . . . .” Elementary and SecondaryEducation Act of 1965, Background Material with Related Presidential Recommendations , available at http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED018492.pdf.

3 Deborah Gordon Klehr, Addressing the Unintended Consequences of No Child Left Behind and Zero Tolerance:Better Strategies for Safe Schools and Successful Students ,16 g eo . j. on PovertY l. & P ol ’Y 585 (2009); LindaDarling-Hammond, Race, Inequality, and Educational Accountability: The Irony of ‘No Child Left Behind,’ 10r Ace e thnicitY & e duc . 245, 252 (2007);m ontY n eill , et Al ., FAiling o ur c hildren : h ow “n o c hild l eFt Behind ”u ndermines QuAlitY And e QuitY in e ducAtion (2004)[hereinafter n eill , et Al ., FAiling o ur c hildren ], availableat http://www.fairtest.org/node/1778; James E. Ryan, ThePerverse Incentives of the No Child Left Behind Act , 79N.Y.U. L. R ev . 932, 941 (2004).

4 s hAron l. n ichols & d Avid c. B erliner , c ollAterAl d AmAge : h ow h igh -s tAkes t esting c orruPts AmericA ’s s chools 50-63 (2007); m ichelle Fine , et Al ., n ew j erseY ’s s PeciAl r eview Assessment : l ooPhole or l iFeline ?, app. c(2007), available at http://www.edlawcenter.org/ELCPublic/elcnews_080822_SRAPolicyBrief.pdf; see also e ducAtion l Aw c enter -PA, i mProving “A lternAtive e ducAtion For d isruPtive Youth ” in PennsYlvAniA , 15-16 (2010),available at http://www.elc-pa.org/pubs/downloads2010/ELC_AltEdPA_FullReport.pdf.

5 See, e.g., AdvAncement Project , at 27-29; AmericAn FederAtion oF t eAchers , w here w e s tAnd : s tAndArds -BAsed Assessment And AccountABilitY (2009), (discussingan AFT survey indicating that more than 80% of theirmembers agree that “there is too much testing,” and 87%said testing “has pushed other important subjects andactivities out of the curriculum.”); Forum For e ducAtion And d emocrAcY , d emocrAcY At r isk : t he n eed For A n ew FederAl PolicY in e ducAtion , 38 (April 2008),availableat http://www.srnleads.org/press/pdfs/democracy_at_ risk_2008.pdf; c enter on e ducAtion PolicY , c hoices ,c hAnges , And c hAllenges : c urriculum And instruction in the nclB e rA , (rev. 2007),available at http://www.cep-dc.org/displayDocument.cfm?DocumentID=312; FAir t est , t he d Angerous c onseQuences oF h igh -s tAkes s tAndArdiZed

t esting , (2007), available at http://www.fairtest.org/dangerous-consequences-highstakes-standardized-tes;Fine et Al , supra note 4, at app. c;j ustice m Atters ,Behind the t est s cores : t eAching And l eArning u nder Arrest (2007), available at http://www.justicematters.org/jmi_sec/jmi_dwnlds/BTS_Report_FINAL.pdf; n ichols & B erliner , supra note 4, at 132-141;l indA d Arling -h Ammond , Address For the w illiAm h. A ngoFF m emoriAl l ecture s eries : s tAndArds , Assessments , And e ducAtionAl

PolicY : i n Pursuit oF g enuine AccountABilitY (Oct. 30,2002), available at http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/PICANG8.pdf; RAND Corporation, Teachers’ Responses to Standards-Based Accountability (WorkingPaper WR-259-EDU, 2005), available at http://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/2005/RAND_WR259.pdf;rAnd c orPorAtion , i nstructionAl PrActices r elAted to s tAndArds And Assessments Working Paper WR-374-EDU(2006), available at http://www.rand.org/pubs/working_

papers/2006/RAND_WR374.pdf.6 See, e.g., AdvAncement Project , supra note 1, at 27-29;n eill , et Al ., FAiling o ur c hildren , supra note 3;n ichols & B erliner , supra note 4, at 57-78, 145-170;j onAthAn k oZol , t he s hAme oF the n Ation : t he r estorAtion oF APArtheid s chooling in AmericA 109-134 (2005).

7 See, e.g., AdvAncement Project , supra note 1, at 15-21;nAAcP l egAl d eFense And e ducAtionAl Fund , i nc .,supra note 1.

8 20 U.S.C. § 7115(b)(2)(E).9 Jessica Feierman, et al,The School to Prison Pipeline...

and Back: Obstacles and Remedies for the Re-Enrollment of Adjudicated Youth , 54 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1115, 1122-1123

(2009/10).10 Id.; d Avid r. g iles , s chool r elAted ProBlems

c onFronting n ew j erseY Youth r eturning to l ocAl c ommunities And s chools From j uvenile d etention FAcilities And j uvenile j ustice c ommission ProgrAms 6(2003), available at http://www.njisj.org/document/giles_ report.pdf.

11 AdvAncement Project , supra note 1, at 30-32;see alsod Aniel l osen & r ussell s kiBA , s usPended e ducAtion :u rBAn m iddle s chools in c risis , (September 2010),available at http://www.indiana.edu/~equity/docs/Losen_ Skiba___Suspended_Education.pdf.

12 AdvAncement Project , supra note 1, at 30-32.13 Id. at 20-22.14 Education Week Research Center, EdCounts Database,

available at http://www.edweek.org/rc/2007/06/07/edcounts.html.

15 l osen & s kiBA , supra note 11; AdvAncement Project , supranote 1, at 22-23.

16 Id.17 Id.18 See, e.g. , Diane Ravitch, Time to Kill ‘No Child Left Behind,’

e ducAtion w eek (June 10, 2009);FAir t est . NAEP R Esults P RoducE M oRE E vidENcE of NclB’ s f AiluRE , (April 28,

Notes



2009), available at http://www.fairtest.org/naep-results-produce-more-evidence-nclbs-failure; t he c ivil r ights Project At uclA, w hY h igh s tAkes AccountABilitY s ounds g ood But d oesn ’t w ork – And w hY w e k eeP o n d oing i t AnYwAY , 7 (April 2009), available at http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12-education/nclb-title-i/why-high-stakes-accountability-sounds-good-but-doesn2018t-work2014-and-why-we-keep-on-doing-it-anyway/mintrop-high-stakes-doesnt-work-2009.pdf; s hAron

l. nichols

,et

Al

., high

-stAke

testing

And

student

Achievement : d oes AccountABilitY Pressure increAse s tudent l eArning ?, 20 (January 2006);see generally d iAne r Avitch , t he d eAth And l iFe oF the g reAt AmericAn s chool s Ystem : h ow t esting And c hoice Are u ndermining e ducAtion , Basic (2010);n ichols & B erliner , supra note 4.

19 l osen & s kiBA , supra note 11, at 10;r ussell s kiBA , et Al ,Are Zero t olerAnce Policies e FFective in the s chools ? Ar ePort BY the AmericAn PsYchologicAl AssociAtion t Ask Force , (2006), available at http://www.apa.org/pubs/info/reports/zero-tolerance.pdf.

20 Note that under the current system, only State Report Carddata on assessment scores is required to be disaggregated by

gender. Schools do not have to report their graduation ratesdisaggregated by gender, schools are not held accountablefor student performance by gender, and student performanceand graduation rate data is not cross-tabulated (i.e., withineach race, by gender) for either reporting or accountabilitypurposes. See http://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/ les/pdfs/2010.7.23_nwlc_sign_on_letter_re_esea__data.pdf formore information.

21 Forum For e ducAtion And d emocrAcY , c reAting A n AtionAl c ulture oF l eArning : t he Forum For e ducAtion & d emocrAcY ’s r ecommendAtions For the r eAuthoriZAtion oF eseA (2010), available at http://www.forumforeducation.org/ les/u48/FED_Short_Paper_ on_ESEA.pdf; BroAder Bolder APProAch to e ducAtion ,s chool AccountABilitY : A B roAder , B older APProAch (June 25, 2009), available at http://www.boldapproach.org/20090625-bba-accountability.pdf; r ichArd r othstein et Al , g rAding e ducAtion : g etting AccountABilitY r ight (2008); l indA d Arling -h Ammond et Al , AnAlYsis And r ecommendAtions For A lternAtives to the w Ashington Assessment oF s tudent l eArning 15 (September 2006),available at http://www.srnleads.org/data/pdfs/wasl.pdf;Forum on e ducAtionAl AccountABilitY , e mPowering s chools And imProving l eArning : A j oint o rgAniZAtionAl s tAtement on the FederAl r ole in PuBlic s chooling (updated 2010) , available at http://www.edaccountability.org/Empowering_Schools_Statement.html.

22 See, e.g., AdvAncement Project , supra note 1, at 24, 34-38.23 Id . For example, thousands of schools are already

implementing school-wide Positive Behavior Support, anevidence-based approach to discipline shown to reducedisciplinary referrals while supporting improvementsin achievement, attendance, safety, and staff morale.e ducAtion l Aw c enter , s chool -w ide Positive BehAvior s uPPort : A P lAn For PennsYlvAniA (2010),available at http://www.elc-pa.org/pubs/downloads2010/

PBSBrie ngBook9-8-10.pdf. Many schools are alsoexperiencing dramatic improvements through implementingrestorative justice practices. Restorative practices representan approach to resolving con icts and building positiverelationships among students and between teachers andstudents. The premise of restorative practices is that,by creating a greater sense of community in the school,students and staff share a greater sense of responsibility toeach other. See internAtionAl institute For r estorAtive

PrActices

, imProving

school

climAte

: Findings

From

s chools imPlementing r estorAtive PrActices (2009),available at http://www.safersanerschools.org/pdf/IIRP-Improving-School-Climate.pdf.

24 Robert H. Horner, et al.,A Randomized Wait-List Controlled Effectiveness Trial Assessing School-Wide Positive Behavior Support in Elementary Schools , 11 j. P ositive BehAvior interventions 133 (2009); Illinois PBIS Network, IllinoisSchools Address Inequitable Discipline Practices, u PdAte n ewsletter , Dec. 2009, at 1.

25 In Clayton County, Georgia, the rst school district toenter into a “School Offense Protocol,” schools havebecome safer and referrals to the justice system have fallen

substantially while the district’s graduation rate is up20%. AdvAncement Project , supra note 1, at 37-40; LynnSherrod et al, Childish Behavior; Criminal Behavior, t he h untsville t imes (Jun. 1, 2008)

26 Monty Neill , A Better Way to Assess Students and Evaluate Schools , e ducAtion w eek (June 18, 2010),available at http://www.fairtest.org/ les/better-way-to-assess-EdWeek6-18-10.pdf; Forum on e ducAtionAl AccountABilitY , j oint o rgAniZAtionAl s tAtement on n o c hild l eFt Behind (2004), available at http://www.edaccountability.org./Joint_Statement.html.

27 Gary Ratner & Monty Neill,Integrating ‘Helping SchoolsImprove’ With ‘Accountability’ Under ESEA: The KeyRole For Qualitative, As Well As Quantitative, EvaluationsAnd The Use Of ‘Inspectorates’ (Working Paper No. 2,Dec. 15, 2009), available at http://www.fairtest.org/k-12/accountability; BroAder Bolder APProAch to e ducAtion ,s chool AccountABilitY , supra note 20. Note that there isa brief mention of such review teams in the Departmentof Education’s “Blueprint,” though the expected role theywould plan within this framework is still unclear. u.s. d eP ’t

oF e duc . A B luePrint For r eForm 12 (2009).28 See, e.g., Forum For e ducAtion And d emocrAcY , supra note 529 See generally www.edaccountability.org.30 For more detail, see Letter from the Dignity in Schools

Campaign to the U.S. House of Representatives Comm. onEduc. & Labor (Mar. 26, 2010),available at http://www.dignityinschools.org/ les/Dignity_in_Schools_House_ ESEA_Letter.pdf.

31 A model for this approach is evident in the process requiredby the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which isdesigned to eliminate such disparities. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(22).

32 A bill supporting positive behavior support already existedthe 111 th Congress (H.R. 2597, the Positive Behavior for Sand Effective Schools Act), and should be incorporated inESEA.



Advancement Project1220 L Street, NW, Suite 850Washington, DC 20005

(202) 728-9557www.advancementproject.org

Education Law CenterThe Philadelphia Building1315 Walnut Street, 4th FloorPhiladelphia, PA 19107(215) 238-6970www.elc-pa.org

Juvenile Law Center

The Philadelphia Building1315 Walnut Street, 4th FloorPhiladelphia, PA 19107(215) 625-0551www.jlc.org

NAACP Legal Defense andEducational Fund, Inc.99 Hudson Street, Suite 1600New York, NY 10013 (212) 965-2200www.naacpldf.org

National Center for Fair& Open Testing (FairTest)15 Court Square, Suite 820Boston, MA 02108(857) 350-8207www.fairtest.org

The Forum for Educationand DemocracyP.O. Box 15

Stewart, Ohio 45778(740) 662-0503www.forumforeducation.org

The authors wish to thank the Open Society Foundations for making this publication possible.

The Authors

Acknowledgement

Documents

Advancement Project School-to-Prison-Pipeline Position Paper