From Special Education to the Criminal Justice System: The Need for Early Intervention in the Special-Education-to-Prison Pipeline
Introduction
Since the 1980s, the school-to-prison pipeline has been in the American consciousness, impacting the long-term educational trajectories of students who fall into the vicious cycle of school exclusion and repeated incarceration [2]. Many children who are affected by the school-to-prison pipeline also struggle with learning disabilities or histories of poverty, abuse, and neglect. However, rather than being offered the additional educational or counseling support they need, these vulnerable youth are pushed out of public education systems and into the juvenile and criminal justice systems [3]. Once suspended or expelled from school, children are three times more likely than their peers to completely drop out and face incarceration, creating a vicious, inescapable cycle [4]. Students with disabilities are especially vulnerable to the school-to-prison pipeline, with the United States Department of Education reporting that “students with disabilities made up 12% of students receiving one or more out-school suspensions, compared to about 5% of students without a disability” [5]. Students with disabilities represent 12% of the overall school population, yet they make up 25% of all students involved in a school-related arrest, 58% of students placed in seclusion, and a staggering 75% of all students physically restrained at school [6]. Without necessary support, students with disabilities are unable to access their full educational potential, leading them to be disproportionately targeted by the school-to-prison pipeline.
Among students with disabilities, students of color are especially overrepresented in the special-education-to-prison pipeline, reflecting a long legacy of discrimination in the national education system. Over one-quarter of African-American boys with disabilities and 19% of African-American girls with disabilities received at least one out-of-school suspension in the 2011-2012 school year. Despite making up only 18.7% of the special education population, African-American students with disabilities represent 49.9% of the special education population in correctional facilities [7]. The disproportionate vulnerability of students of color with disabilities in face of the school-to-prison pipeline highlights the pernicious trends of discrimination based on race and ability that drive the national education system as it currently stands.
Given the impacts of early educational experiences on the future growth and development of special education students, legislation must effectively protect their rights, offering early intervention and regular review of the support that special education students are being offered. Rather than approaching special education students with policing and punitive measures, the national education system must implement evidence-based classroom support and work to combat the existing stigmas surrounding special education.
Current Legislation and Deficiencies
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
Formerly known as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was signed into law by President Gerald Ford in 1975 and serves as the main legislation currently governing special education. IDEA mandates that a free appropriate public education (FAPE) must be made available to all eligible children with disabilities, seemingly providing protection to vulnerable children and ensuring that they have access to special education support in addition to any related services they might require. Created under the provision that “improving educational results for children with disabilities is an essential element of our national policy of ensuring equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency for individuals with disabilities,” IDEA’s stated purpose is to support children with disabilities and meet their unique needs, preparing them for further education, employment, and independent living. Overall, IDEA aims to protect the rights of children with disabilities and their parents while continually assessing special education efforts [8].
However, despite there being over 8 million infants, toddlers, children, and adolescents eligible for the protections of IDEA, the legislation is unable to provide adequate support to students with disabilities. In the landmark 2017 case, Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District Re-1 (2017), the Supreme Court ruled that schools must offer “an IEP that is reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances” [9]. Though this decision seems to provide protections to students in need of special education by determining that the program offered to the plaintiff by their school was inadequate, it also is ambiguous in defining the standards of a “reasonably calculated” IEP. School personnel still hold the power to make decisions about the effectiveness of the IEP, with no clear rules or government checks regarding how to determine the adequacy of the educational benefits being conferred on the student [10]. As a result, many schools still implement segregation and sub-par curricula for students with disabilities, leading to the stigmatization and exclusion of students with disabilities in academic spaces [11]. This continued lack of support is underscored in the 2023 Supreme Court case, Luna Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools. Arguing that the school district failed to honor the IEP of a deaf student, the plaintiff alleged that the student was never provided with a qualified sign-language interpreter, fostering a sub-par educational experience that almost made the student unable to graduate from high school [12]. As shown by this case, the implementation of IDEA is overly lax, preventing the law from providing proper learning experiences and protection to students with disabilities and their families.
Yet, these issues do not stem completely from flaws in the structure of IDEA, as the policy lacks financial support from the federal government. As of the 2021-2022 school year, federal funding for IDEA was only 13% of the average per pupil expenditure for special education, an insufficient sum compared to the 40% that the federal government committed to pay under IDEA [13]. Due to these limited funds, IDEA is unable to accomplish its stated objectives, resulting in deficiencies in identifying children with disabilities, providing services to such children, tracking their progress, and determining when they need different forms of assistance [14]. These chronic deficits in the implementation and regulation of IDEA ultimately work to fuel the special-education-to-prison pipeline, as students with disabilities are denied the support promised to them under IDEA.
The Impact of Special Education Deficiencies on Society and Individuals
Deficiencies in special education legislation trap students with learning disabilities into the special-education-to-prison pipeline, strengthening existing stigmas from non-disabled peers, teachers, and the public. According to a 2016 case study published by the United Nations on the stigmatization that youth with disabilities face in educational settings, stigmas hold enormously detrimental impacts on the psychological development and academic outcomes for students with learning disabilities [15]. Due to the pressure of these negative experiences, students might develop self-stigma and expect to be treated differently, intensifying socio-emotional and academic insecurities. They learn to endorse negative beliefs and stereotypes, leading to poorer academic performance, a lower sense of belonging, and greater anxiety [16]. Resulting external and psychological adjustment difficulties can persist into adulthood if left unaddressed, with a 2014 study reporting that as many as twice as many students with disabilities were classified as poorly adjusted as were classified as highly adjusted, when transitioning into postsecondary education [17]. The long-lasting impact of early educational experiences exemplifies the importance of instituting early interventions for youth in need of special education.
The special-education-to-prison pipeline also highlights the racial disparities that exist in special education eligibility, placement, and school discipline. Students of color are often inaccurately identified for special education, with African American students from the ages of 6 to 21 being over two times more likely to receive services for emotional disturbances and intellectual disabilities than students of other races or ethnic groups. This overrepresentation of students of color in special education systems creates racial segregation, stigmatization, and group misrepresentation within schools, as teachers and school officials underestimate the academic potential of students of color [18].
In addition, students of color who are in need of special education services are often placed in programs that are poor in quality, leading them to be denied the support they need. For instance, a 2018 study found that 74% of White fourth-grade students with reading difficulties received special education services, standing in stark contrast to the 44% of Black children and 43% of Hispanic children who were given access to the same services [19]. Special education students of color are also disproportionately exposed to environments that use severe and frequent disciplinary action, rather than providing constructive learning opportunities. As stated by the United States Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights in a 2014 data brief, Black students with disabilities are almost four times more likely to have multiple suspensions, and almost twice as likely to be expelled as white students with disabilities [20]. These methods of exclusionary discipline take away instructional time, driving students of color to avoid school, repeat a grade, or drop out [21].
Given the importance of early educational experiences on the future growth and opportunities of students with learning disabilities, it is necessary to offer adequate support and address the specific needs of these students, regardless of their racial and ethnic backgrounds. The special-education-to-prison pipeline does not exist on its own; in order to counteract the stigmatization based on ability and race that currently drives the pipeline, schools must reduce policing and instead implement evidence-based classroom support.
Future of Special Education Youth: Pathways to Adult Outcomes
Despite technically being entitled to FAPE, children receiving special education services tend to have lower rates of high school completion and fewer years of education, with the graduation rate for students with disabilities being 59% in comparison to 79% for the total population [22]. Students in special education programs also face greater rates of incarceration, with youth in need of special education being seven times more likely than youth without special education needs to be expelled or suspended, which in turn increases the likelihood of juvenile justice involvement in the year following a suspension or expulsion [23]. Special education students also are at risk of substance misuse, as a 2011 study found that 16% of 12-13 year-old students in special education engaged in daily smoking, as opposed to 1% of their counterparts in mainstream education [24].
These negative experiences hinder special education students’ psychological development, leading them to be vulnerable to poor outcomes in adulthood [25]. With a lack of research-based practices being applied in classrooms and a deficiency in the amount of effective special education professionals available, classroom environments as they are currently structured are not conducive to special education learning. The struggle of special education students to access opportunities for higher education and professional careers highlights the need for early intervention and consistent review of special education students’ progress.
Familial Stigmas
Although many special education systems have significant deficiencies, having access to an IEP can nonetheless offer some benefits for students with learning disabilities. Yet, many families reject special education, raising a question about the necessity of special education programming when those closely impacted by learning disabilities are intentionally refusing institutional attempts at providing support. However, the reality is that many families reject IEPs due to the stigma associated with having a disability. For these families, the fear of their child being labeled as a special education student and internalizing the negative stereotypes of peers and teachers outweighs the possibility of accessing support through an IEP [26]. For instance, in the Massachusetts Bureau of Special Education Appeals alone, there has been an increase in the number of IEPs rejected, with around 11,830 in the fiscal year 2022, compared to the 11,331 received in the previous year [27]. By driving families to avoid the minimal support that they are offered, stigmatization facilitates the special-education-to-prison pipeline, as students with learning disabilities are unable to receive the assistance that they need. In order to counteract the possibly harmful effects of refusing an IEP, special education lawyers are working to build greater awareness of a partial rejection of an IEP. Through a partial rejection, families can show the school district that they do not completely agree with the program that the district is proposing, allowing them to preserve the right to later seek compensatory services, while also ensuring that the school district provides services to their children [28]. By harnessing legal aid, families are able to advocate for the restructuring of the faulty legislation that governs special education.
Current Progress and Possible Interventions
In 2020, the United Nations proposed a multifaceted approach to reducing stigma and discrimination, drawing on academic literature and case studies to develop the Social and Behavioural Change Interventions to Strengthen Disability-Inclusive Programming. The results of this study aim to strengthen disability-inclusive programming and address stigma and promote inclusion, by addressing multiple socio-ecological levels, targeting multiple audiences, and combining communications, advocacy, and programming. In these interventions, the United Nations encourages contact between members of stigmatized groups and others, creating opportunities for special education students and their peers to learn to engage through cooperative learning. Through collaboration, special education students can learn to mingle with their peers and advocate for themselves, overcoming the barriers of self-stigma. On an institutional level, teachers must create inclusive classroom environments, recognizing and overcoming any ableist biases and receiving training to effectively support students with disabilities. Government agencies must create programs, where special education students can mingle with their peers, such as extracurricular activities aimed at inclusive education. Campaigns for inclusive education and data on the biases and disproportionate outcomes that currently affect students with disabilities can be disseminated via mass media, working toward social mobilization and real-world interventions [29].
Conclusion
In conclusion, the approach toward special education must change, with a focus on reducing stigmatization and punitive measures and instead offering effective support to students with learning disabilities and their families. The process to undermine the vicious cycle of the special-education-to-prison pipeline lies on multiple layers, ranging from changes in personal outlook to institutional reform. Education does not have to end at the age of 18, and extended support for students with disabilities, beyond the age of 18, can ultimately provide them with the skills that they will need for a lifetime.
Bibliography
[1] Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund. “School-to-Prison Pipeline,” n.d. https://dredf.org/legal-advocacy/school-to-prison-pipeline/.’
[2] American University School of Education. “Who Is Most Affected by the School to Prison Pipeline?,” February 24, 2021. https://soeonline.american.edu/blog/school-to-prison-pipeline/.
[3] ACLU. “School-to-Prison Pipeline.” Accessed March 26, 2024. https://www.aclu.org/issues/juvenile-justice/juvenile-justice-school-prison-pipeline#:~:text=Many%20of%20these%20youth%20are,%2C%20punished%2C%20and%20pushed%20out.&text=The%20ACLU%20believes%20that%20children,supported%20in%20schools%2C%20not%20incarcerated.
[4] Greater Boston Legal Services. “School to Prison Pipeline Intervention Project,” n.d. https://www.gbls.org/our-work/elder-health-disability/school-to-prison-pipeline-intervention-project#:~:text=That%20trajectory%20%E2%80%93%20repeated%20school%20exclusion,of%20the%20suspensions%20and%20expulsions.
[5] “Beyond Suspensions: Examining School Discipline Policies and Connections to the School-to-Prison Pipeline for Students of Color with Disabilities,” July 23, 2019. https://www.usccr.gov/files/pubs/2019/07-23-Beyond-Suspensions.pdf.
[6] U.S. Department of Education. “Discipline, Restraint and Seclusion,” May 15, 2012. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/frontpage/pro-students/issues/dis-issue02.html#:~:text=Moreover%2C%20students%20with%20disabilities%20represent,and%20referred%20to%20law%20enforcement.
[7] Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund. “School-to-Prison Pipeline,” n.d. https://dredf.org/legal-advocacy/school-to-prison-pipeline/.
[8] Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. “About IDEA,” n.d. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/about-idea/.
[9] “ENDREW F., A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HIS PARENTS AND NEXT FRIENDS, JOSEPH F. ET AL. v. DOUGLAS COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT RE–1,” March 22, 2017. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-827_0pm1.pdf.
[10] Williams, Valerie. “47 Years Later, Are We Delivering on the Promise of IDEA?” Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services Blog (blog), n.d. https://sites.ed.gov/osers/2022/11/47-years-later-are-we-delivering-on-the-promise-of-idea/. Accessed March 20, 2024.
[11] Williams, Valerie. “47 Years Later, Are We Delivering on the Promise of IDEA?” Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services Blog (blog), n.d. https://sites.ed.gov/osers/2022/11/47-years-later-are-we-delivering-on-the-promise-of-idea/. Accessed March 20, 2024.
[12] “LUNA PEREZ v. STURGIS PUBLIC SCHOOLS ET AL.,” March 21, 2023. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-887_k53m.pdf.
[13] Chris Van Hollen U.S. Senator for Maryland. “VAN HOLLEN, HUFFMAN INTRODUCE BILL TO FULLY FUND SPECIAL EDUCATION,” July 10, 2023. https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-huffman-introduce-bill-to-fully-fund-special-education.
[14] Samuels, Christina. “Special Education Is Broken.” Education Week, January 8, 2019. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/special-education-is-broken/2019/01.
[15] Stephanie L. Haft, Caroline Greiner de Magalhaes, and Fumiko Hoeft. “A Systematic Review of the Consequences of Stigma and Stereotype Threat for Individuals With Specific Learning Disabilities.” Journal of Learning Disabilities, April 30, 2022. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10090527/.
[16] Stephanie L. Haft, Caroline Greiner de Magalhaes, and Fumiko Hoeft. “A Systematic Review of the Consequences of Stigma and Stereotype Threat for Individuals With Specific Learning Disabilities.” Journal of Learning Disabilities, April 30, 2022. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10090527/.
[17] Lipka, Orly, Miriam Sarid, Inbar Aharoni Zorach, Adi Bufman, Adi Anna Hagag, and Hila Peretz. “Adjustment to Higher Education: A Comparison of Students With and Without Disabilities.” Frontiers in Psychology, June 26, 2020. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00923.
[18] Morgan, Hani. “Misunderstood and Mistreated: Students of Color in Special Education.” Voices of Reform: Educational Research to Inform and Reform 3, no. 2 (December 29, 2020). https://doi.org/10.32623/3.100005.
[19] Ibid.
[20] “Data Snapshot: School Discipline.” U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights, March 21, 2014. https://civilrightsdata.ed.gov/assets/downloads/2011-12_CRDC-School-Discipline-Snapshot.pdf.
[21] Laird, Lorelai. “Students of Color with Disabilities Are Being Pushed into the School-to-Prison Pipeline, Study Finds.” ABA Journal, July 24, 2019. https://www.abajournal.com/web/article/report-finds-more-discipline-are-at-the-intersection-of-race-and-disability.
[22] Chesmore, Ashley A. “Childhood Placement in Special Education and Adult Well-Being.” United States Department of Health and Human Services, January 7, 2016.
[23] Bo-Kyung Elizabeth Kim, Jennifer Johnson, Laura Rhinehart, Patricia Logan-Greene, Jeanette Lomeli, and Paula S. Nurius. “The School-to-Prison Pipeline for Probation Youth with Special Education Needs.” United States Department of Health and Human Services. Accessed March 20, 2024. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8432608/.
[24] Kepper, Annelies, Karin Monshouwer, Saskia van Dorsselaer, and Wilma Vollebergh. “Substance Use by Adolescents in Special Education and Residential Youth Care Institutions.” Springer, May 14, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-011-0176-2.
[25] Chesmore, Ashley A. “Childhood Placement in Special Education and Adult Well-Being.” United States Department of Health and Human Services, January 7, 2016. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4943842/.
[26] Perlman Legal. “The Power of the Partial Rejection.” Accessed March 20, 2024. https://www.perlmanlegal.com/the-power-of-the-partial-rejection/.
[27] Perlman Legal. “The Power of the Partial Rejection.” Accessed March 20, 2024. https://www.perlmanlegal.com/the-power-of-the-partial-rejection/
[28] Perlman Legal. “The Power of the Partial Rejection.” Accessed March 20, 2024. https://www.perlmanlegal.com/the-power-of-the-partial-rejection/
[29] Wason, Armorer, Anita Schrader McMillan, and Irena Sumi. “Social and Behavioural Change Interventions to Strengthen Disability-Inclusive Programming.” UNICEF, November 5, 2020. https://www.unicef.org/media/120416/file/Social_and_Behavioural_Change_Interventions_to_Strengthen_Disability_Inclusive_Programming.pdf.