From Classmates to Inmates: An Integrated Approach to Break the School-to-Prison Pipeline

Abstract

This article explores the connection between dropping out of school and being incarcerated, particularly for youth, including students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, students from poverty, and students with disabilities, who have been shown to be at higher risk for both. This article seeks to shift focus away from a deficit-based perspective and instead creates an integrated learning model that incorporates culturally responsive teaching with an integrated services model in order to promote access, equity, and culturally supported experiences for children. If students are supported and successful in school, then dropout and incarceration should decrease and the pipeline from school to prison can be broken.

A well-documented connection exists between school dropout and incarceration (National Center on Secondary Education and Transition, 2012). For example, a history of arrest prior to age 16 decreases graduation potential by 27% and students who do not graduate from school are 26% more likely to become inmates (Hjalmarsson, 2008). Henry, Knight, and Thornberry (2012) report that student connectedness to peers and school by age 15 has been found to significantly decrease the likelihood of violent behavior and drug use by age 18. African American students are twice as likely as their white peers to drop out of school and Hispanic students are two and a half times as likely to drop out. Additionally, students with disabilities are twice as likely to drop out of school (Chapman, Laird, Ifill, & KewalRamani, 2011).

School dropout has generally been viewed from an accusatory lens that places most of the blame on the student. According to Stearns and Glennie (2006), studies on dropout too often focus on characteristics inherent in the student without taking into account the interaction between the school structure and the student. In comparison, little discourse has been generated about the institutional practices that make it difficult for some students to graduate, such as zero tolerance policies or the wait-to-fail model often associated with special education (Boccanfuso & Kuhfeld, 2011). While the short-term effects of dropout have been well-documented, the data on its long term effects and classroom-based solutions are, at best, conflicting (Henry, Knight, & Thornberry, 2012). This article explores the nexus between school dropout and imprisonment with an emphasis on dropout prevention via cultural awareness and action-based, culturally responsive pedagogy. A model is then proposed for integrated learning opportunities for all students, including those who have often been marginalized because of their race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, or ability level. This model, anchored in culturally responsive practices and equity of environments, builds on the idea of using students’ cultures as capital that leads to successful teaching and learning environments for all students.

CURRENT CONTEXT

About half of the nation's black and Hispanic students attend schools in low-income areas with dropout rates that range from 40% to 50% (Balfanz & Letgers, 2006). Students of color with disabilities in urban settings are significantly less likely to graduate than their non-disabled, suburban counterparts. Specifically, black and Hispanic males have the lowest graduation rates among students of color (Child Trends, 2012). Dropping out of school makes it difficult to find a job that offers adequate living wages (Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University, 2009), which often translates into higher incarceration rates, especially for males (National Center on Secondary Education and Transition, 2012). In their look at the experiences of young adult high school dropouts and the experiences of their better-educated peers, researchers at the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University (2009) found that dropouts confront a number of labor market problems. Dropouts are less likely to be active participants in the labor force, and they experience higher rates of unemployment than do their better-educated peers. The average jobless rate for young high school dropouts in 2008 was 54%. Dropouts were 33% less likely to hold a job than young adults who had completed at least some—one to three years—of post-secondary school. This research also found that the jobless rate varied across gender, race/ethnic groups, and by household income, with African American dropouts and dropouts from low income families being the least likely to be employed, often leading to involvement in criminal activity.

Some of the current educational practices “function to normalize an ‘expectation’ of incarceration for growing numbers of youth” (Meiners, 2007, p. 31). The school-to-prison conduit can begin as early as elementary school, when some students begin to feel that they are not part of the school's culture. Gradual disengagement from the school's culture, due to lack of involvement in school activities, can begin as early as first grade for students experiencing academic and behavioral difficulties (Croninger & Lee, 2001; Kemp, 2006). The wait-to-fail model typically associated with special education, where students first have to underperform in order to receive the necessary educational interventions, suggests students with disabilities are put at risk from early on in their educational lives. Similarly, the focus on punishment, rather than prevention, indicates that the criminal justice system is “stacked against minorities and the poor” (Kleiman, 2011, p. 4). People of color and those who live in poverty are among the most vulnerable to punishment by the criminal-justice system (Kleiman, 2011). Yet, a significant quantity of current research on the dropout phenomenon shows that many in the school system place the blame for this phenomenon solely on the students (Bost, 2006; Noguera, 2003; Patterson, Hale, & Stessman, 2008). In his conversations with school administrators, Noguera heard comments, such as “I can see from how he [referring to a pre-adolescent boy] behaves already that it's only a matter of time before he ends up there [prison] too” (p. 341). During their study of the school's impact on low-income Hispanic students, Patterson, Hale, and Stessman (2008) heard comments, such as “[the Hispanic students that attend this school] just don't have a desire to get in there and try to pass a class” (p. 6).

The disconnect between student culture and school culture is at the root of student performance, where certain behaviors begin to be seen as deficient and inappropriate. Public schools in the United States reflect white, middle-class values (Patterson, Hale, & Stessman, 2008), and student behavior is interpreted through this lens. However, these values often clash with those of low income, culturally diverse students and their families (Klingner, Artiles, Kozleski, Harry, Zion, Tate, Duran, & Riley, 2005), leading to expectations that can contribute to low academic performance and, ultimately, disengagement (Patterson, Hale, & Stessman, 2008). This deficit perspective is reinforced by stereotypes of negative child rearing practices and detrimental home environments among culturally and linguistically diverse families and those who live in poverty (Hart, Cramer, Harry, Klingner, & Sturges, 2010). Hart Hart, Cramer, Harry, Klingner, and Sturges (2010), for example, found that the determination of emotional disturbance (ED) in their study of four low income, African American students was a combination of the children's behaviors, the beliefs of school personnel, and the decision making practices regarding special education referral, evaluation, and placement. These stereotypes and limited knowledge of individual family circumstances form the basis for the attribution of labels that identify students as emotionally disturbed, problem children (Hart, Cramer, Harry, Klingner, & Sturges, 2010). These practices fail to support a young person's desire for academic achievement and preparedness, often resulting in misbehavior as a form of resistance (Nolan, 2011).

Zero Tolerance Policies

A look at the similarities between educational policy related to dropping out and criminal justice mandates that are connected to incarceration will help us better understand the nexus between dropout and potential incarceration. Some of the disciplinary policies that are presently being implemented in schools have been found to be significant factors in pushing students of color (Heitzeg, 2009) and students with disabilities (Wagner, 2005) out of school. Zero tolerance policies are implemented throughout the nation, significantly impacting public policy (Stader, 2004). In the educational setting, zero tolerance policies are defined as disciplinary policies that result in mandatory suspension or expulsion for students who commit offenses that involve weapons, violence, or drugs (National Association of School Psychologists, 2008; Stader, 2004; US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2011). Zero tolerance policies were created as a result of the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994. Within three years, 79% of schools had implemented some form of zero tolerance policy (Boccanfuso & Kuhfeld, 2011). These policies rely on one-size-fits-all punishment (New York Civil Liberties Union, 2011), mandating severe consequences regardless of the circumstances.

The implementation becomes particularly relevant for schools with large populations of students of color and students of low socioeconomic status, as these zero tolerance policies often lead to high levels of out-of-school suspensions and expulsions. These policies disproportionately impact students of color and students with disabilities (Brownstein, 2010). As evidence, 18% of students enrolled in preschool are African American; however, African Americans make up 42% of students suspended at least once, and 48% of the preschool students who are suspended more than one time (US Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, 2014). Overall, African American students are 3.5 times more likely than white students to be suspended or expelled, and Hispanic students are 1.5 times more likely to be suspended and twice as likely to be expelled than white students (Brownstein, 2010). Students with disabilities are four times more likely than students without a disability to be suspended (New York Civil Liberties Union, 2011). If we break it down by disability we can see that 76% of students with learning disabilities and 90.2% of students with emotional behavioral disorder will be suspended at least once, while 37% of students with other disabilities, such as autism, will be suspended (Fabelo, Thompson, Plotkin, Carmichael, Marchbanks, & Booth, 2011). These practices generally cause students to fall so far behind in the curriculum that it becomes impossible for them to catch up and, as a result, they often drop out of school (Brownstein, 2010; Stearns & Glennie, 2006).

With time, zero tolerance policies have been expanded (Skiba, 2010), and have come to refer to the typically severe punishment often reserved for both major and minor incidents—such as fighting and even failure to complete homework—in order to “send a message” that certain behaviors will not be accepted in school (Skiba & Peterson, 2000). In New York, for example, police and school safety agents made 882 arrests in schools between July 2011 and June 2012. Seventy-five percent of these arrests were for misbehaviors typical of adolescent behavior, such as fighting. A quarter of the arrests involved felony offenses (New York City School-Justice Partnership Task Force, 2013). Zero tolerance policies are related to the discriminatory application of discipline policies in schools (National Association of School Psychologists, 2008). These policies respond to behavior problems with suspensions from school, rather than with proactive measures, and the lack of proactive measures potentially increases the dropout risk of students, especially for those with emotional or behavioral disorders (National Association of School Psychologists, 2008). Also, African American and Hispanic males are over-represented in this particular disability category (Harry & Klinger, 2006). African American students, for example, represent 17% of the student population in American schools yet they represent 27% of the students with emotional and behavioral disorder (Cullinan & Kauffman, 2005).

Despite their intent and potential cost factor, zero tolerance policies have not significantly reduced serious disciplinary infractions (Stader, 2004), mainly because they are not based on proactive measures but rather focus on punishment. Similarly, the criminal justice system generally focuses on consequences (i.e., arrests, convictions, and harsher sentences) as opposed to primarily focusing on fostering safer communities (Hjalmarsson, 2008; Kleiman, 2011). According to the American Civil Liberties Union (2008) zero tolerance policies are often the first step on the school-to-prison pipeline.

Three Strikes Policy

In the criminal justice system, the three strikes law is termed as the practice of imposing longer sentences for repeat offenders. This law was created with the idea that harsher sentences would deter other potential criminals from committing crimes. Black and Hispanic males have been significantly more impacted by this law than white males (de la Vega  & Galloway, 2012). Like its punitive counterpart in education, zero tolerance policies, the three strikes law falls short of success, due to its focus on punishment and fear, rather than prevention and community empowerment.

Students of color and those who live in poverty are often vulnerable to punishment in both the educational system and in the criminal justice system (Kleiman, 2011). By 2008, African Americans constituted 50% of the prison population; of this sample, 33% were high school dropouts (Spieldnes, & Yamatani, 2011). Additionally, according to the National Disability Rights Network (2012), it is estimated that as many as 50% of inmates have some type of disability. In the juvenile justice system, this number is estimated to be up to 75% (PACER Center, n.d.) Acknowledging and addressing these similarities (i.e., that black and Hispanic males, individuals with disabilities, and individuals who live in poverty are more frequently impacted) are paramount in order to propose potential solutions.

Dropout Prevention Programs

Since there is no one single reason why individuals drop out of school, there is no one single strategy that can prevent dropout and, thus, reduce the school-to-prison pipeline. Once risk factors have been pinpointed, though, a number of evidence-based strategies already proven effective in addressing those specific risk factors exist (Hammond, Linton, Smink, & Drew, 2007), and it is imperative that students’ needs are matched to the appropriate program (Kennelly & Monrad, 2007). There are many programs that seek to either prevent at-risk behavior or that intervene in the hope of reducing such behavior. Many of these programs target high-risk social behavior (e.g., gang membership), school behavior (e.g., early aggression or poor attendance), or individual and family characteristics (e.g., disability, early parenthood, or lack of parental support). Most programs address a combination of risk factors (Hammond, Linton, Smink, & Drew, 2007). Some of the most successful approaches involve schools making changes in those areas over which they have the most control. This includes programs that help make the transition into high school easier and less stressful for students, or programs that provide rigorous and relevant curriculum. It also is imperative that students, particularly those who come from groups with disproportionate rates of dropout, have access to effective, highly motivated, and experienced teachers (Bost & Riccomini, 2006; Kennelly & Monrad, 2007). Therefore successful dropout prevention programs implement meaningful professional development for teachers (Kennelly & Monrad, 2007), and assign an adult to work with students in small groups, supporting and challenging them to succeed (Balfanz & Legters, 2006).

The model described in this article attempts to improve the quality of instruction available to students by fusing together existing models that focus on the actual instruction occurring in classes, as well as the settings in which this instruction is delivered. Through this model, matters of both content and access are addressed, ensuring equity for students who have long been serviced on the fringes of mainstream education. This inclusive approach should reduce the disproportionate representations and segregations of vulnerable populations while ensuring that all students receive adequate instruction. It is hoped that this model will increase the likelihood of school completion and ultimately close the school-to-prison pipeline.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

As demonstrated, dropout and potential imprisonment affect people of color, those living in poverty, and individuals with disabilities disproportionately. Most of the research on the educational outcomes of these historically disenfranchised groups assumes a deficit-based perspective (Nygreen, 2006). Specifically, Bourdieu (1977) contended that an individual's life experiences are generally predetermined by the family's socioeconomic and intellectual background. Bourdieu's contention is mirrored within the context of dropout, as Fall and Roberts (2012) found that students who come from low socioeconomic backgrounds and whose parents did not graduate from high school, also tend to not graduate. Bourdieu's theory is clear, as well as exclusionary, in arguing at the macro level that the upper and middle classes possess the cultural assets that are of value. Moreover, there is the contention that in a hierarchal society, those not belonging to these classes by birthright should aspire to adhere to these standards (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977). These notions permeate into society and, specifically, into education, at a micro level in various ways. Some of these include: (a) theorizing about the capabilities of those outside of the white middle class from a deficit-based perspective, (b) labeling populations outside of the established norm as “at-risk” or “disadvantaged,” (c) establishing an exclusionary, hierarchal system of labeling or grouping students, and (d) glorifying white collar work, while often reducing blue collar work aspirations as less then desirable through curricula that is generally too wide in scope, yet too narrow in lens.

Given the systemic tendency to discuss minority related issues from a deficit-based lens (Nygreem, 2006), researchers must be cautious not to equate poverty and race with academic ineptness or anti-social propensities. In order to develop proactive solutions that empower, as opposed to oppress, alternative sociocultural theories that consider the social capital of minorities must be explored. Yosso (2002) proposed an alternative to theories that view socioeconomic background as the main contributor to poor educational outcomes, asserting that people's social standing (regardless of belonging to a lower socioeconomic stratum), and related experiences can actually help them achieve, as opposed to hindering them. Given the established connection between dropout rates and the criminal justice system, these theories should be considered when developing potential solutions. Despite perceptions that generally attribute failure in school to low family socioeconomic background, other more powerful forms of cultural capital can counteract this effect. Specifically, Yosso's theory points toward the idea that each individual can possess:

• aspirational capital: the ability to maintain dreams and aspirations;

• linguistic capital: the intellectual skills that result from bilingualism or multilingualism;

• familial capital: knowledge communicated via family history or personal stories;

• social capital: access to resources through networking and the community;

• navigational capital: the ability to understand how societal institutions function; and

• resistance capital: the ability to challenge and mobilize against injustice.

Yosso's (2002) contention that there are various non-traditional cultural capitals is not tied to the notion that the student must fit each of the criteria (e.g., linguistic capital), but rather focuses on the importance of applying a more comprehensive approach to culture, based on the student's sociocultural identity.

Understanding the possible interaction of the theories discussed and how they affect schooling in America can potentially lead to making more informed decisions on the type of systems that should be in place to effectively break the classmate-to-inmate pipeline. When addressing the issue of potential dropout and incarceration within the context of Yosso's (2002) theoretical frameworks, minorities make up a large percentage of both the dropout and prison population (Chapman, Laird, Ifill, & KewalRamani, 2011). Dropout has been significantly linked to failure to belong to the school's culture (Bost, 2006), due to cultural marginalization (oftentimes involving a disability status) and teaching and curriculum that is not culturally sensitive, responsive, or relevant to students. Yosso's theory provides a multi-dimensional framework of culture capital that questions the dominant rhetoric and that can be applied at various strata in schools. Additionally, it promotes the implementation of multidisciplinary approaches (Solórzano & Yosso, 2002) via culturally responsive teaching. Yosso's framework identifies the student's cultural history as an important tenet of teaching and learning, thus addressing the centrality of experiential knowledge (Solórzano & Yosso, 2002), and views culturally diverse students and their cultural capital from an assets-based perspective. These components are similar to the concept of culturally responsive teaching (Gay, 2002, 2010), which is at the core of the proposed integrated learning model in that it addresses: (a) creating a student-centered and culturally responsive learning milieu, (b) establishing equitable, inclusive structures where disabled and non-disabled students learn together, (c) promoting a contextually authentic environment where the students can learn based on their experiences and culture capital, and (d) evaluating pedagogical readiness to apply culturally responsive teaching by addressing teacher preparation, as well as the scope and quality of instruction.

PROPOSING A SOLUTION MODEL

Given the similarities between students who are disproportionately represented in special education, and those in the school-to-prison pipeline (i.e., students from African American and Hispanic backgrounds, and students from low socioeconomic status), we should consider exploring practices that have been found to be effective in working with students who are culturally, linguistically, socially, and ability-wise different from the mainstream, and apply these here. When discussing the various layers that encompass the educational system, it is paramount to recognize the interconnectedness among teaching, learning, and educational outcomes. Along this vein, educational philosophy and how it subsequently informs practice, generally mirrors the beliefs and norms set forth by the mainstream culture. According to Harry and Klinger (2006) and Nygreen (2006), when communities of color and/or those with a disability status are discussed in the literature, as well as in schools, it is often from a deficit-based perspective and with a passive voice. Specifically, these communities are theorized about, by others outside of their cultures, who in turn use their own cultural perspective as the norm against which all others should be measured or compared. Given the often absent or passive voices of communities of color and/or disability in the educational debate, most of the policy and practice related to schooling in America is of a cultural scope, limited to the views of the dominant culture. This often leads to curricula and pedagogy reflecting expectations and practices that lack adequate multicultural relevancy, and often label and ostracize those that do not fit the set cultural norms.

When trying to address curricula and pedagogical change, theoretical models proposed by researchers often have been resisted by practitioners because of their prescriptive nature or because of their lack of connection to practical applications or the realities of today's classroom. The proposed Integrated Learning Model seeks to bridge the work of sociocultural theorists, such as Yosso, and educational researchers, such as Gay (2002, 2010) and Frattura and Capper (2006), in order to form a clear framework that can serve to guide classroom climate and structure, while still leaving room for flexibility of implementation. This model recognizes that each class has its own unique set of strengths that should be embraced. This approach to teaching can provide empowering, action-based means to acknowledge and build upon the aspirations, family structure, social networks, and overall experiences of the student.

The Integrated Learning Model incorporates Yosso's (2002) culture capital tenets into the following guiding principles: (a) all students, including those of color and/or with a disability, can contribute valuable information to the learning process; (b) there are other alternatives to the standard white, middle class norms to address cultural value; (c) inclusive practices are centered on the notion that cultural capital is not exclusively hierarchical; and (d) all students, regardless of race, ethnicity, socioeconomic, or disability status, can draw on their cultural assets, which excludes having to borrow these sets of norms from the white, middle class standard. More specifically, culturally responsive teaching applies cultural knowledge based on the student's experiences, and in an environment that is compatible with the student's cultural norms (Siwatu, 2007). Inclusive service delivery models, such as the Integrated Comprehensive Services Model (Frattura & Capper, 2006), ensure equity of opportunity and access to appropriate educational settings. Merging inclusive models with culturally responsive pedagogy can be one solution to breaking the school-to-prison pipeline for youth who are vulnerable to disproportionate school failure or dropout due to sociodemographics or disability status, by facilitating equal access to quality instruction.

Culturally Responsive Teaching

Gay (2002, 2010) proposed four instructional areas of reform needed to effectively implement culturally responsive teaching within special education: critical cultural consciousness; culturally pluralistic classroom climates; diverse communities of learners; and multicultural curriculum and culturally congruent instructional strategies. Critical cultural consciousness refers to teachers becoming aware of their own cultural socialization and the effects that this has on their interactions with diverse students. Culturally pluralistic classroom climates involve the tone, environment, and types of interactions with students that teachers have and the expectations of students that teachers hold. Diverse communities of learners are comprised of collaborative and cooperative learning environments where students are interdependent on each other and the cultures that each member brings to the group. Finally, teachers should integrate multicultural information, resources, and materials in all skills and across all subjects. This should occur using a wide variety of instructional strategies that are connected to various learning styles; for example, students may be able to express themselves through verbal storytelling, which can be used as a bridge to improve creative writing skills.

Fenning and Rose (2007) call for the provision of school-wide professional development to promote cultural competence around student-teacher interchanges and classroom management. More recently, Shealey, McHatton, and Wilson (2011) examined ten years of literature to document the use and effectiveness of culturally responsive teaching. Major themes from the research that examined the extent to which special education teacher preparation programs have implemented culturally responsive teaching in their curriculum reveal an emphasis on the following: (a) building “deep” cultural knowledge and understanding of teacher candidates; (b) modeling culturally responsive teaching strategies in courses and fieldwork; and (c) positively impacting attitudes and perceptions of teacher candidates about culturally and linguistically diverse learners.

Integrated Comprehensive Services Model

In facilitating an optimum learning environment for students that ultimately increases their graduation potential, an integrated and comprehensive service delivery model must be considered. Said model must address the individual student in his or her totality within the general academic and social constructs of the school setting. This encompasses not only the curriculum taught, but also the opportunities for, and types of interactions among, students, including those from typically vulnerable demographics. In order to design a comprehensive school reform approach that facilitates optimum learning for all students, regardless of any risk factor, Frattura and Capper (2006) developed an integrated comprehensive services model that includes four components: (a) focusing on equity, (b) establishing equitable structures, (c) implementing change, and (d) providing access to high-quality teaching and learning. The goal of this model is to prevent student failure, and this is accomplished by building teacher capacity to reach the diversity of students.

Theoretically, the Integrated Comprehensive Services Model proposed is grounded in the juxtaposition of Bourdieu's (1977) views on the rigid and preordained nature of class upward mobility, and Yosso's contention (2002) that culture capitals outside of the mainstream have inherent traits that promote the potential for socioeconomic improvement within the context of education (e.g., aspirational capital, linguistic capital, familial capital, social capital, and navigational capital). Accordingly, the proposed model was derived by merging educational applications of these capitals, which involves creating a culturally responsive environment based on the student's cultural identity and acknowledging the importance of the student's cultural context and environment and how these impact learning.

Integrated Learning Model

A combination of the components of the Integrated Comprehensive Services Model and the instructional areas addressed in culturally responsive teaching ideally can provide a model that facilitates equal access to quality instruction and learning for all students, which is key in promoting school completion and reducing the risk of incarceration. Figure 1 provides a model that incorporates and expands the work of Gay (2002, 2010) and Frattura and Capper (2006) by infusing culturally responsive teaching with the Integrated Comprehensive Services Model. Yosso's work informs the proposed Integrated Learning Model in that it expands the theoretical tenets (i.e., aspirational capital, linguistic capital, familial capital, social capital, and navigational capital) into school- and classroom-based culturally responsive practices. Specifically, it adds to the notion that “communities of color [with or without a disability status] are places with multiple strengths” (Yosso, 2005, p. 82).

FIGURE 1 Elements of Gay's (2002, 2010) components of culturally responsive teaching and Frattura's and Capper's (2006) integrated comprehensive services model are merged into a new Integrated Learning Model

The model takes into account both the experiences and environments of diverse students and, more importantly, it places cultural value or capital on these cultural practices or circumstances. Arguably, the model also offers an alternative to the standard white, middle class stronghold on dictating whose culture has capital. By providing a framework for how culturally responsive teaching can be integrated with equity and access as a means of early intervention to prevent dropout, schools may begin to break the classmate-to-inmate pipeline for students of color and students with disabilities. As depicted, the proposed model is holistic in nature, taking into account the academic and social experiences of students and teachers. The model also addresses the various school-related constructs that affect the learning and thus graduation potential of all students, and hopes to facilitate integrated, quality instruction, promote learning, and thus increase graduation potential.

Focusing on Equity of Environments in Culturally Pluralistic Settings

The first tenet of the Integrated Learning Model involves designing inclusive classrooms where all students are valued and made to feel like integral parts of the classroom culture. In this classroom, all students receive purposeful and meaningful learning opportunities from qualified teachers, regardless of their socioeconomic background, ability level, or family circumstance. Equity of classroom environments should not differ based upon the socioeconomic status of the community in which the school is located. High expectations for academic achievement must exist for all students, regardless of any of these factors. In equitable environments, all students belong in the class, even those whose learning or behavior require supports. The focus is on finding ways to support the student to be successful within the classroom, rather than turning toward exclusionary practices, such as suspensions, expulsions, or referrals to segregated settings. Crosnoe, Cavanagh, and Elder (2003) found that exposure to peers who are academically oriented is especially important in schools where overall student achievement tends to be low. Academically oriented peers are more likely to have effective testing and homework skills and have greater information about opportunities and activities. Since research has shown that connectedness to school can be a predictor of decreased dropout, even at an early age (Henry, Knight, & Thornberry, 2012), this tenet of the model can strengthen those bonds and ideally increase graduation potential.

Establishing Equitable, Diverse, and Interdependent Communities of Learners

This inclusive ideology continues in the second tenet, providing the framework to set up equitable relationships among students within classroom environments. Within the context of culturally responsive teaching as supported by Gay (2002, 2010), teachers must facilitate collaborative and cooperative classroom structures where students can rely on each other as members of a community of learners. Students must be accountable for the progress and success of each other as a team with no room for exclusion of those who are not perceived as “fitting in” or “measuring up.” Students value the cultural capital that each contributes to the team and encourage each other to use these as strengths in achieving common goals. According to Wentzel, McNamara-Berry, and Caldwell (2004), the perception of having a supportive relationship with other students in the class is positively related to academic achievement and prosocial behaviors. Crosnoe, Cavanagh, and Elder (2003) found that peer support increases academic participation and motivation, helping to make school a priority and thus promoting achievement.

Implementing Change through Critical Cultural Consciousness

The third tenet involves implementing change in specific practices, such as teachers confronting their own biases due to language, culture, socioeconomic status, or ability level (or disability label) of students. These biases must be explored among the students toward each other as well. Shin, Daly, and Vera (2007) found that students who reported higher levels of positive peer norms and positive ethnic identity also reported being more engaged in school. The lack of school engagement is among the most cited reasons for dropout (Bridgeland, Dilulio, & Morison, 2006). Once all members of the class are viewed through a lens of respect and equal rights, the types of interactions that occur between teachers and students would be able to change. This includes a decrease in the removal of students from the general education classroom and a decrease in teaching students in contrived situations, such as segregated resource rooms that teach concepts in isolation with little or no contextual reference (Frattura & Capper, 2006).

Providing Access to Multicultural Curriculum with Culturally Congruent Instructional Strategies

The final tenet of the proposed Integrated Learning Model addresses the classroom environment with the idea that to truly facilitate integrated quality instruction, teachers must be highly qualified in their subject areas, the content must be culturally relevant, and the teachers must be skilled in designing their instruction so that it is tailored to be compatible with learners who bring various skill sets and learning styles to the classroom. Quality of instruction can be clearly linked to academic achievement. According to Kennely and Monard (2007), research shows that the most indicative predictor of dropping out of school is whether a student has repeated a grade in elementary or in middle school. Especially, failure to be promoted into tenth grade, coupled with receiving more than one F in core academic subjects, has an almost 85% success rate in predicting which students will not graduate on time. The curriculum must include components that empower students to become anti-racist, anti-classist, anti-poverty, and pro-positive for social change, as an imperative to support the academic success of all members of the classroom.

CONCLUSION

The nexus between dropout and prison is cultural marginalization. As stated, students are more likely to drop out when they do not feel they are part of the general culture of the school (Bost, 2006). As a result of dropping out, their potential to earn a living significantly decreases. A pattern of criminal behavior has been associated with students who drop out.

The larger theoretical implications of cultural marginalization have resulted in systemic practices that have generally catered to the needs and norms of the dominant culture, potentially leaving those on the outside, disenfranchised. While creating sustainable answers to the long-standing questions surrounding cultural capital can take many years, some educational models have begun the re-structuring process. Given the negative impact of cultural marginalization, culturally responsive models could be implemented to stop the hemorrhaging of minority youth into the penal system.

The proposed Integrated Learning Model in Figure 1 is based on two vetted, previously successful, models (i.e., Gay's [2002, 2010] components of culturally responsive teaching and Frattura and Capper's [2006] integrated comprehensive services model). This model also encompasses the social-cultural tenets proposed by Yosso (2002), since it is based on a broader, more comprehensive definition of culture within the context of education. This model is meant to empower teachers to leverage the diverse attributes of students as unique strengths and to move towards more inclusive learning opportunities. Perhaps, this Integrated Learning Model can be a successful dropout prevention tool and thereby, potentially, put an end to the school-to-prison pipeline for so many of our youth in need of intervention.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Elizabeth D. Cramer

Elizabeth D. Cramer is Associate Professor and Program Leader of Special Education at Florida International University. Her research interests include preparing all teachers to work collaboratively with diverse learners with an emphasis on teacher collaboration, the intersection of culture and disability, and using data to inform placement and instructional decisions.

Liana Gonzalez

Liana Gonzalez is an Instructor in Special Education at Florida International University. Her research interests include disability advocacy and related educational practices as well as social justice issues within the context of teaching and learning.

Cynthia Pellegrini-Lafont

Cynthia Pellegrini-Lafont is a doctoral candidate in Special Education at Florida International University and has been a teacher in Miami for over ten years. Her research interests include drop out and drop out prevention, in particular, with respect to students with disabilities, the school-to-prison pipeline, and virtual learning.