Enduring dispositions: Examining punitive logics in the context of disciplinary reform
| DOI | 10.1177/1362480617719451 |
| Date | 01 February 2019 |
| Published date | 01 February 2019 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
719451TCR0010.1177/1362480617719451Theoretical CriminologyBrent
research-article2017
Article
Theoretical Criminology
2019, Vol. 23(1) 96 –116
Enduring dispositions:
© The Author(s) 2017
Article reuse guidelines:
Examining punitive logics in
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480617719451
DOI: 10.1177/1362480617719451
journals.sagepub.com/home/tcr
the context of disciplinary
reform
John J Brent
Eastern Kentucky University, USA
Abstract
Reflecting the punitive turn in criminal justice, schools have adopted a crime control
orientation when responding to student misconduct. Termed the ‘criminalization of
school discipline’, this trend has diminished student and school outcomes while also
establishing a school-to-prison pipeline. Consequently, there has been mounting
pressure to reform punitive and disproportionate practices. While research has
evaluated the impact of remedial programs, little work explores how punitive logics
continue to structure disciplinary responses. Drawing from ethnographic and interview
data, this study examines the entrenchment of punitive dispositions in the context of
appeals for alternative practices. By tracing the contours of punitive norms within a
non-criminal justice context, this study captures the mechanisms through which penal
logics infuse into society and extend beyond criminal justice systems.
Keywords
Youth, punishment, discipline, reform, inequality
Introduction
Schools across the United States have adopted a crime control orientation when respond-
ing to student misconduct (Kupchik, 2010). The discourses, punishment practices, and
security measures once reserved for the justice system have become a common part of
Corresponding author:
John J Brent, Assistant Professor, School of Justice Studies, College of Justice and Safety, Eastern Kentucky
University, Richmond, KY 40475, USA.
Email: John.Brent@eku.edu
Brent
97
the school environment (Casella, 2006). This ‘criminalization of school discipline’ has
produced a number of negative consequences at the student and school level (Hirschfield
and Celinska, 2011). Additionally, school discipline has been charged with perpetuating
inequalities through disproportionate punishment practices. Racial/ethnic minority youth
are more likely to experience disciplinary sanctions while also being more likely to be
punished more severely (Department of Education, 2014b). This has led many to note a
‘school-to-prison pipeline’—a process in which students, particularly racial/ethnic
minorities, become enmeshed in criminal justice as a result of punitive disciplinary prac-
tices (Wald and Losen, 2003).
Disproportionality in exclusionary discipline has led the Office of Civil Rights (OCR)
and American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to investigate Title IV and VI violations of
the 1964 Civil Rights Act. These legal protections largely prohibit discriminatory practices
in schools. Overall, federal reports conclude that—due to current disciplinary practices—
students of color are systematically being denied access to education (Department of
Education, 2014a). To facilitate reforms targeting punitive discipline, the US Departments
of Education and Justice released a series of ‘guidelines’ that encourage schools to prevent
or correct discriminatory practices by incorporating evidence-based policies (Department
of Education, 2014b).
Mounting scrutiny has placed pressure on schools to alter their disciplinary policies
and adopt remedial programs. Recent work has emerged evaluating the implementation
and impact of various reform initiatives. Some of the more common programs include
Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBS/PBIS), restorative justice models,
mediation practices, mentor programs, cognitive strategies, and family and community
outreach initiatives. Generally, this body of literature assesses how well schools execute
alternative strategies with specific attention on outcomes and barriers to implementation
(Bambara et al., 2012; Bradshaw et al., 2008b; Kincaid et al., 2007). While prior studies
shed empirical light on emerging programs, little work examines the mechanisms through
which punitive disciplinary norms are perpetuated.
Therefore, this study explores the resilience of engrained punitive dispositions
underpinning school discipline during external appeals for more inclusive and equita-
ble approaches. Echoing prior work, school discipline is conceptualized here as an
apparatus, a system of discourses including narratives, punishment strategies, beliefs,
and rationales influencing responses to student misconduct (Hirschfield, 2008).
Further, punitive—or criminalized—school discipline denotes a ‘crime control para-
digm in the definition and management of the problem of student deviance’
(Hirschfield, 2008: 80). Employing these definitions enables this analysis to speak to
strategies and linkages that situate school discipline as a microcosm of punitive trends
in crime control.
By tracing the contours and consequences of larger crime control trends, this effort
examines the entrenchment of practices and structural resources that advance punitive
school discipline. Specifically, this study identifies mechanisms through which punitive
discourses permeate and structure individual and institutional dispositions. Further, it
uncovers key levers through which non-criminal justice institutions adopt and organize
around crime control logics. While existing work has examined how the need for safety
has reconfigured social institutions around ideals of crime control (Simon, 2007), this
98
Theoretical Criminology 23(1)
work provides insight into how punitive practices are endorsed and perpetuated in a non-
criminal justice institution.
The criminal justice–school discipline parallel
There can be little doubt that the USA has experienced a penal turn over the last 30
years. This has led many scholars to propose organizing concepts such as a ‘culture of
control’ (Garland, 2001), ‘risk society’ (Beck, 1992; Giddens, 1999), and ‘new penol-
ogy’ (Feeley and Simon, 1992). To explain the penal turn, multiple accounts have been
provided (see Kraska and Brent (2010) and Lynch and Verma (2016) for an overview).
Perhaps the most common, and contested, suggests that rising crime rates in the 1960s
led to various forms of ‘penal welfarism’ (Garland, 1985). However, more recent work
proposes that punitive practices help control surplus populations brought about by neo-
liberal deindustrialization, deregulation, and decentralized politics (Wacquant, 2010).
Socio-legal research documents that, in place of dismantled welfare politics, the state
has exploited fears of crime to garner support and usher in more punitive forms of gov-
ernance (Simon, 2007).
Crime-control practices have also been interpreted as actuarial strategies tasked with
managing those considered dangerous, particularly racial/ethnic minorities and the eco-
nomically disadvantaged (Feeley and Simon, 1992). Evidence indicates that criminal
justice processing through the use of zero-tolerance policies, mandatory minimums, sen-
tencing guidelines, and actuarial practices have intensified disparities. Though racial/
ethnic minorities comprise only roughly one-third of the population, they represent
approximately 60 percent of those incarcerated (Carson, 2014), and this disproportion is
not explained by differences in criminal offending. Consequently, many criminal justice
practices perpetuate Jim Crow policies and ‘peculiar institutions’ that serve the extra-
penological function of criminalizing, confining, and repressing minorities (Alexander,
2012; Wacquant, 2000).
These trends, however, are not confined to criminal justice. Over the past two dec-
ades, schools have adopted practices and policies that label, identify, and punish youth
misconduct through punitive policies (Hirschfield and Celinska, 2011). Specifically,
schools have escalated their use of surveillance systems, metal detectors, drug-sniffing
dogs, sweeps for contraband, drug tests, and school police and resource officers (SROs)
(Robers et al., 2015). Similarly, schools have adopted heightened forms of disciplinary
strategies such as in- and out-of-school suspensions, expulsions, transfers, and even
zero-tolerance policies (Losen and Martinez, 2013). Zero-tolerance codes refer to a set
of deterrence-based policies that punish all offenses severely without regard to the con-
text of the offense, severity of the action, or disciplinary record of the youth (Skiba and
Peterson, 1999). This general phenomenon has commonly been referred to as the ‘crimi-
nalization of school discipline’ (Hirschfield, 2008; Hirschfield and Celinska, 2011).
Overall, these disciplinary strategies send the message to all students that misbehav-
ior—no matter how minor—will not go unpunished (Skiba and Noam, 2001). Nolan
(2011) argues that, under the ‘security apparatus’ and ‘order maintenance framework’
operating within schools, strategies such as zero tolerance criminalize non-criminal
behavior and extend the net of discipline to all students, not only those being sanctioned.
Brent
99
These exclusionary practices, serving as punitive mechanisms of control, now contribute
to the school-to-prison pipeline via direct and indirect mechanisms (Mowen and Brent,
2016).
The use of exclusionary discipline within schools has escalated dramatically over the
last few decades (Sykes et al., 2015). Estimates from the US Department of...
To continue reading
Request your trial