School Securitization and Latina/o Educational Progress

Abstract

Increasing control and security has become a common strategy to address school violence. Some argue, however, that increasing social control has detrimental consequences for racial and ethnic minorities, especially Latinas/os. This study utilizes mixed methods to research the influence of school justice, fairness, order, and discipline may have on Latina/o youth dropping out. Quantitative data reveal any potential benefits of increased school justice, fairness, and order against dropping out are negated once Latina/o youth are disciplined. Qualitative data suggest Latina/o youth perceive differential treatment as a consequence of increased securitization that could lead to these students dropping out of school.

Keywords

race and ethnicity mixed methods dropout discipline security

From a life course perspective, educational failure and the event of dropping out of high school can initiate detrimental effects on social, educational, and economic outcomes for an individual. Dropping out is a serious problem because those who fail to complete school have poorer general health over their life span and are more likely to be unemployed, delinquent, use drugs, and incarcerated (Cataldi, Laird, & KewalRamani, 2009; Dunham & Wilson, 2007; Rumberger, 2011). Beyond the individual costs associated with dropping out of school, the drop-out problem has implications on the broader labor and economic structures within the United States. Half of welfare recipients and a large part of the prison population drop out of high school; moreover, dropouts earn significantly less over their lifetime than those who have completed high school degrees (Alexander, Entwisle, & Kabbani, 2001; Tyler & Lofstrom, 2009). In an era of globalization, there is a need to address the phenomena of dropping out of high schools and facilitating skilled and educated workers in the labor force to compete in a global market. Unfortunately, racial and ethnic inequalities in the educational system have prevented many people of color from participating in the global economy, particularly for a rapidly growing Latina/o population.

The Latina/o youth population since 1990 has grown more than four times the rate of the rest of the population and has become the largest ethnic subgroup in the country (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). Latina/o youth, however, have been marginalized in the educational system that is reflected in lower educational achievement and increased drop-out rates in comparison with their White counterparts (Cataldi et al., 2009; Gándara & Contreras, 2009; Hondo, Gardiner, & Sapien, 2008). Although individual, family, school, and community inequalities contribute to the Latina/o drop-out problem (Cólon & Sánchez, 2010; Gándara & Contreras, 2009; Hill & Torres, 2010; Rumberger, 2011), there is emerging research that social control and securitization (i.e., increasing security guards, metal detectors, and the like) of schools may contribute to Latina/o youths’ educational failure. For example, in a recent study, Rios (2011) found that the overrepresentation of Latina/o in the juvenile and criminal justice system is partly linked to stringent social control and security policies implemented within schools. Moreover, Rios (2011) suggested that the “criminalization” of Latinas/os in schools limits their opportunities for adult success.

Although this research does not specifically explore the “school-to-prison” pipeline, research does indicate that dropping out of school significantly increases the likelihood of criminal justice contact, especially for Latina/o youth (Rios, 2011). Because youth who are disciplined at school can lead to academic and social exclusion, educational failure, and economic depression (Kim, Losen, & Hewitt, 2010; Noguera, 2008; Rios, 2011), the conceptualization of the school-to-prison pipeline has emerged from research that focuses on the effects of unjust and unfair punishment practices imposed on racial and ethnic youth. Research demonstrates that dropping out of school can place youth on a track toward delinquency, criminal behavior, arrests, conviction, and incarceration (Harlow, 2003; Jarjoura, 1996; Rumberger, 2011; Voelkl, Welte, & Wieczorek, 1999). Thus, some have deemed increasing social control, security, and surveillance of Latina/o a process and success by (a) marginalizing schools, communities, and families; (b) restricting and excluding Latina/o youth from the labor market; and (c) promoting the continuation of mistrust and resentment toward authority (Noguera, 2008; Portillos, González, & Peguero, 2012; Rios, 2011). What remains uncertain is how social control and security policies implemented within schools are affecting the likelihood of dropping out of school for Latina/o youth.

Literature Review

Justice, Fairness, and Order

Schools are institutions of socialization. According to Dewey (1916), schools could serve not only to level the playing field but also as an apprenticeship for civic life. Since Dewey’s seminal work that clearly indicated schools socialize and educate youth into appropriate social positions, roles, and responsibilities for a democratic society, researchers have scrutinized the socialization process occurring within schools. Unfortunately, school is a social institution that can reproduce inequality and potentially foster diminished perceptions that schools are institutions of justice, fairness, and order, which can have serious implications on racial and ethnic minority youths’ educational success (Cooper, 2013; Rosenbloom & Way, 2004; Valenzuela, 1999).

There are racial and ethnic differences in perceptions of school justice, fairness, and order. School rules are often highlighted and emphasized toward Latina/o youth as a means of socializing them toward accepting increased social control in their lives (Bracy, 2010; Cammarota, 2004; Hagan, Shedd, & Payne, 2005; Kupchik & Ellis, 2008; Milner, 2013). Although Latina/o youth have heightened awareness of what the school rules are, they also have diminished perceptions of the school rules as fair and of the enforcement of these rules as just (Bracy, 2010; Cammarota, 2004; Hagan et al., 2005; Kupchik & Ellis, 2008).

In addition, racial and ethnic minorities’ perceptions of justice, fairness, and order (or lack thereof) within their lives affects overall well-being, stress, depression, criminal behavior, and attitude and motivation in school (Cooper, 2013; Powell & Jacob Arriola, 2003; Wong, Eccles, & Sameroff, 2003). Racial and ethnic minority youth have diminished perceptions of justice and fairness within their lives and schools (Bracy, 2010; Hagan et al., 2005; Kupchik & Ellis, 2008). Moreover, if students perceive their schools as unfair they are more likely to exhibit behavioral problems in school that lead to poor academic achievement (Ripski & Gregory, 2009; Stewart, 2003). As a result, there is a growing concern and research attention on racial and ethnic minority youths’ diminished perceptions of school justice, fairness, and order because it can derail educational progress (Cooper, 2013). However, limited research has examined how daily experiences in school shape racial and ethnic minority youths’ perceptions of school justice, fairness, and order and/or contributes to their dropping out of school.

Disproportional Discipline

“Zero Tolerance” and other school discipline policies have become common responses to the social problems plaguing schools. Zero tolerance policies were originally intended to enforce drug laws but due to mass murders on school campuses today, these policies include a broad range of behaviors. In an attempt to address violent behavior on school campuses, school districts have punitively responded to behavior that was once considered delinquent. For example, fighting on school campus now requires a mandatory call and arrest by the police. Given the punitive response in an attempt to curb violence in school, we are seeing a criminal justice-style approach to school safety (Chen, 2008; Kim et al., 2010; Milner & Tenore, 2010; Skiba et al., 2011; Wald & Losen, 2003). Zero tolerance policies assign explicit, predetermined punishments to specific violations of school rules, regardless of the situation or context of the behavior. In many cases, punishment for a violation under the policy is severe, such as suspension or expulsion from school (Fabelo et al., 2011; Milner & Tenore, 2010; Skiba et al., 2011; Wald & Losen, 2003). Although school discipline policies are intended to protect students, many argue that current discipline policies are ineffective, problematic, and discriminatory, particularly for racial and ethnic minorities (Kim et al., 2010; Kupchik, 2010; Milner & Tenore, 2010; Skiba et al., 2011). The racial and ethnic disparities in school discipline policies are worrisome as discipline can place a student on a path toward academic disengagement and failure (Milner, 2013; Noguera, 2008; Rios, 2011; Skiba, Michael, Nardo, & Peterson, 2002). Kupchik and Monahan (2006) argued that school discipline “facilitates the criminalization of poor students in order to establish and maintain a criminal class to legitimate systems of inequality in modern capitalist states” (p. 628). If school discipline socializes youth toward economic and educational failure, this type of socialization appears to target racial and ethnic minorities.

In one of the first studies of school disciplinary practices, The Children’s Defense Fund (1975) report revealed that the suspension rates for Black/African American youth are two to three times higher than their White counterparts. Since then, there is continuous evidence indicating Black/African American youth are being disproportionately punished at school (Kim et al., 2010; Kupchik, 2010; Noguera, 2008; Rios, 2011; Skiba et al., 2002). Only a limited number of studies have examined the patterns of school discipline for Latina/o youth. Gordon, Piana, and Keleher (2000) found that the likelihood of Latina/o American youth being involved in school discipline varies across studies. In a study that focuses on school discipline in the multicultural setting of Miami, Florida, public schools, Arcia (2007) found that Latina/o youth are more likely to be suspended than White American youth. In another study, Morris (2005) found that Latina/o students are more likely to receive a form of school discipline and punishment in comparison to both Black/African American and White youth. In a recent study by Peguero and Shekarkhar (2011) discovered that Latina/o youths’ pattern of school misbehavior and discipline do not match. Although Latina/o youth are not misbehaving more than their White counterparts, they are receiving more school disciplinary sanctions.

School discipline can place racial and ethnic minority youth on a path toward educational failure (Kupchik, 2011; Noguera, 2008; Rios, 2011). Consequently, disciplined youth do not view education as a viable process toward adult success and economic attainment. Because of the restricted access disciplined students have to education, increased delinquency, drug use, and adult criminality often result from school exclusion. Moreover, it is evident that Latina/o youth are disproportionately disciplined at school (Arcia, 2007; Peguero & Shekarkhar, 2011; Reyes, 2005). What remains uncertain is to what extent discipline is contributing to Latina/o youths’ dropping out of school.

Security and Surveillance

Studies show that racial and ethnic minority youths’ dislike for added security and surveillance because of concerns for their student rights (Bracy, 2010; Portillos et al., 2012; Rios, 2011). Although some students favor added security and surveillance (Brown & Benedict, 2005), students questioned (a) how these measures were applied fairly to Latina/o youth when compared with White youth (Kupchik & Ellis, 2008), and (b) the real need for excessive security in minority-dominant schools (Watts & Erevelles, 2004). It is problematic how schools in Latina/o communities, many times in collaboration with local police, work to criminalize Latina/o youth (González & Portillos, 2007), particularly those in gangs, associated with gangs, or who appear to be in gangs.

Security measures in Latina/o schools arguably promote school environments where students distrust schools and resist learning (Noguera, 2008; Portillos et al., 2012; Rios, 2011). In the last 12 years, controlled access to schools has increased from 75% to 90%, and schools with at least one security camera have increased from 19% to 55% (Dinkes, Kemp, Baum, & Snyder, 2009). The use of school resource officers has also increased dramatically during the first decade of the 21st century (Brown, 2006; Chen, 2008). In conjunction with the criminalization of schools over the last 30 years, policy makers and law enforcement officials have created policies that (a) shape the American consciousness to view Latina/o youth (and other underrepresented minorities) as criminals (González & Portillos, 2007; Rios, 2006, 2011) and (b) increase criminalization of Latinas/os in schools (Portillos et al., 2012). What remains uncertain is to what extent securitization and surveillance are contributing to Latina/o youths’ dropping out of school.

The Current Study

This mixed-method study extends the literature on school dropouts and Latina/o school involvement by exploring how students’ experiences of school justice, fairness, order, and discipline may affect Latina/o youth dropping out. Quantitative data draw from the Educational Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS), a nationally representative sample of 1,800 tenth-grade Latinas/os, to assess how school justice, fairness, order, and discipline may be contributing to their likelihood of dropping out from school. To better understand the links between school justice, fairness, order, discipline, and dropping out for Latina/o youth, qualitative data are drawn from semi-structured interviews with Latina/o high school students in the southwestern U.S. neighborhood of La Victoria.

Although research demonstrates school justice, fairness, order, and discipline are associated with a wide array of outcomes, there is little known about if and how school justice, fairness, order, and discipline affects dropping out for Latina/o youth. Moreover, researcher demonstrates that increased perceptions of school justice, fairness, and order can curb deviance as well as improve educational outcomes and the belief of democracy within their schools (Bracy, 2010; Kupchik, 2010). Thus, this study has two research questions as follows:

Research Question 1: Do Latina/o students’ perceptions of school justice, fairness, and order facilitate, while discipline disrupts, educational progress?

Research Question 2: Do Latina/o students’ experiences with school justice, fairness, order and discipline contribute to their dropping out of school?

Method

This research utilizes a mixed-methods approach to help explore how issues related to school justice, fairness, order, and discipline are influencing Latina/o high school students’ educational progress, particularly in relationship to their everyday experiences that may be linked to the likelihood of dropping out. A mixed-method approach strengthens this study by minimizing limitations and biases that arise with the use of only one method (Greene, Caracelli, & Graham, 1989; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003). Moreover, mixed methods allow researchers to develop deeper and broader insights concerning the issues under investigation (Greene et al., 1989; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003). Quantitative data explore how school justice, fairness, order, and discipline may influence Latina/o students’ dropping out of school. Qualitative data provide a richer understanding of Latina/o students’ experiences with justice, fairness, order, and discipline. In this study, the two methods complement each other because the quantitative data reveal outcomes whereas the qualitative data show process (everyday lived experiences) to explore the relationship between dropout and school justice, fairness, order, and discipline first, quantitative data collection and analysis methods are provided, followed by the results. The same format is then used for the qualitative findings.

Quantitative Method

Data Collection

Quantitative data are drawn from a subsample of the ELS 2002, consisting of 1,800 Latina/o 10th-grade students in public Schools. ELS is a longitudinal survey administered by the Research Triangle Institute (RTI) for the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) of the U.S. Department of Education. ELS is designed to monitor the transition of a national sample of young people as they progress from 10th grade through high school and on to postsecondary education and/or the world of work. These data include information about the experiences and backgrounds of students, parents, and teachers, and physical and administrative descriptions of the schools those students attend. In ELS survey design, Latina/o students are over-sampled to obtain a sufficient representation for statistical analyses of these groups. The sample weights in these analyses are calculated by NCES (2007) to compensate for the survey design and for non-response bias. Analyses in this study incorporated sample weights to obtain results that reflect a nationally representative population of Latina/o 10th-grade students (see NCES, 2007, for further detail).

Dependent Variable

Dropping out

The dependent variable in this study is dropping out of school (dichotomized as 1 = yes and 0 = no). Research on dropping out confronts a multitude of theoretical and methodological issues. At the center of the debates is a disagreement about how to define and measure dropping out (for a review, see Entwisle, Alexander, & Olson, 2004). School systems often define dropout differently, affecting how rates of completion are calculated. Challenges arise when investigators must distinguish between adolescents who never complete high school versus those who may have dropped out but then return to school or pursue their Graduate Equivalent Degree (GED). Even though some students who have dropped out of school decide to pursue a GED, there is a general consensus that a GED is not equivalent to a high school diploma as GED holders more closely resemble high school dropouts than high school graduates (Entwisle et al., 2004). For the purposes of this study, dropping out (1 = yes) is indicated whether a student was no longer enrolled in school by the third wave (i.e., second follow-up) of the study that occurred in 2006-2007 school year. NCES researchers constructed a variable defined as “ever dropout” in the third wave of the study, capturing whether a student has ever dropped out since the initial 10th-grade survey. Using this third wave of data as the follow-up year provides the most reliable information regarding whether a student “ever” dropped out of high school, as the first follow-up which occurred 2 years later may not have captured all students who may have eventually dropped out. As noted in the prior research (Alexander et al., 2001; Entwisle et al., 2004, Ou, 2008; Rumberger, 2011), the event of dropping out of school, regardless if the student returns after some time or earns a GED, has long-term detrimental educational, social, and economic consequences.

School Securitization Variables

School justice and fairness

Students’ perceptions of school justice and fairness were based on two Likert-type scale items (0 = strongly disagree, 1 = disagree, 2 = agree, and 3 = strongly agree) for the following: (a) the school rules are fair and (b) the punishment for breaking school rules is the same no matter who you are. The range of school justice and fairness is 0 to 6. Higher scores reflect stronger perceptions that there is justice and fairness within their school.

School rules

Students’ perceptions of the school rules were based on three Likert-type scale items (0 = strongly disagree, 1 = disagree, 2 = agree, and 3 = strongly agree) for the following: (a) everyone knows what the school rules are, (b) if a school rule is broken, students know what kind of punishment will follow, and (c) school rules are strictly enforced. The range of school rules is 0 to 9. Higher scores reflect heightened awareness of the school rules.

School order

Students’ perceptions of school order were based on seven Likert-type scale items (0 = strongly disagree, 1 = disagree, 2 = agree, and 3 = strongly agree) for the following: (a) other students often disrupt class (reverse coded), (b) disruptions by other students get in the way of my learning (reverse coded), (c) there are gangs in school (reverse coded), (d) fights often occur between different racial/ethnic groups (reverse coded), (e) students friendly with other racial groups, (f) students get along with teachers, and (g) I don’t feel safe at this school (reverse coded). The range of school order is 0 to 20. Higher scores reflect stronger perceptions that there is order within their school.

School discipline

Students were asked if they have received one of three forms of school discipline: (a) in-school suspension, (b) suspension or probation, or (c) transferred to another school for disciplinary reasons (0 = never, 1 = 1-2 times, 2 = 3-6 times, 3 = 7-9 times, and 4 = 10 or more times). School discipline is dichotomized to indicate whether or not the student received a school discipline sanction.

Student, Family, and School Variables

Student characteristics

Gender is coded male or female based on the student’s self-report of their biological sex. Female students serve as the reference group. Educational achievement is measured using the standardized measure developed by RTI and NCES. ELS included a reading and math composite score based on standardized tests developed by the Educational Testing Service (ETS). The composite score is the average of the math and reading standardized scores, re-standardized to a national mean of 50.0 and standard deviation of 10. School involvement measures if the student is involved in the following four categories of school-based extracurricular participation including (a) academic (e.g., honor society, band, yearbook, etc.), (b) school club, (c) intramural sports, and (d) interscholastic sports. The range of school involvement is 0 to 4. Higher scores reflect more involvement.

Family characteristics

The preconstructed measure of socioeconomic status is a standardized (z score) variable based on five equally weighted, standardized components: (a) father’s/guardian’s education, (b) mother’s/guardian’s education, (c) family income, (d) father’s/guardian’s occupational prestige, and (e) mother’s/guardian’s occupational prestige (see NCES, 2004, for further detail about preconstructed variables). Family structure was a dichotomous variable denoting households in which there are two parents/guardians in the home, in comparison with single parent/guardian homes that serve as the reference group. The parental involvement construct is measured using eight questions that represented parents’ involvement in their children’s school experience. Students were asked to indicate their parents’ or guardians’ engagement in a variety of school activities (e.g., checking homework, discussing school courses, discussing college attendance, etc.). The range of parental/guardian involvement is 0 to 8. Higher scores reflect more parent/guardian involvement.

School characteristics

School size was measured as the total student enrollment of the school. School poverty measures the proportion of students within each school who receive free or reduce-priced lunches. School locale represents whether the school is located in an urban or non-urban (reference category) locale.

Quantitative Analytical Plan

Quantitative analysis utilized logistic regression models with Latina/o students’ likelihood of dropping out of school as the dichotomous dependent variable. Because the ELS was designed as a cluster sample in which schools were sampled with unequal probability and then students were sampled within these selected schools, the subsample of the ELS violated the assumption of independent observation. This study accounted for this non-independence by using a survey estimation technique in STATA. These survey estimators effectively adjusted for the clustering of observations within schools. The quantitative analysis proceeded in several steps. Table 1 presents the quantitative descriptive statistics. In terms of the within-group analysis of Latina/o students in ELS, Table 2 displays the results of logistic regression analyses for the likelihood of Latina/o students dropping out. In the baseline Model 1 of Table 2, dropping out is regressed on student, family, and school variables. In Model 2 of Table 2, the effect of Latina/o students’ perception of school justice and order is examined. In model 3 of Table 2, Latina/o students’ perception of the school rules is analyzed in relation to the likelihood of dropping out. In Model 4 of Table 3, the impact of Latina/o students’ perception of school order on dropping is assessed. In Model 5 of Table 3, the influence of Latina/o students being disciplined on dropping out is observed. Finally, in Model 6 of Table 3, each variable of justice, fairness, order, and discipline is added to the analysis in to assess the comparative effect on Latina/o students’ odds of dropping out.

Table 1.

Descriptives for Latina/o ELS Public School Students’ Sample (N = 1,800).

	Range	M	SD
School securitization
Justice and fairness	0-6	3.07	1.53
Rules	0-9	5.18	1.98
Order	0-20	11.73	2.76
Discipline	0-1	0.21	0.41
Student factors
Female	0-1	0.51	0.50
Educational achievement	21.56-74.56	44.40	9.35
School involvement	0-4	1.19	1.13
Family factors
Socioeconomic status	−1.97-1.91	−0.47	0.66
Structure	0-1	0.74	0.44
Parent/guardian involvement	0-8	4.41	3.03
School factors
Size	1-7	4.78	1.79
Poverty	1-7	4.57	1.68
Urban locale	0-1	0.43	0.49

Note. ELS = Educational Longitudinal Study.

Table 2.

Logistic Regression Coefficients (Standard Errors) and Odds Ratio for Dropping Out for Latina/o Youth.

	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3
	B (SE)	OR	B (SE)	OR	B (SE)	OR
School securitization
Justice and fairness	—	—	−.060 (.044)*	.941	—	—
Rules	—	—	—	—	.004 (.035)^†	1.009
Order	—	—	—	—	—	—
Discipline	—	—	—	—	—	—
Student characteristics
Female	−.459 (.140)***	.631	−.438 (.142)***	.644	−.461 (.142)***	.630
Educational achievement	−.066 (.008)***	.935	−.066 (.008)***	.935	−.066 (.008)***	.935
School involvement	−.238 (.066)**	.787	−.235 (.066)***	.790	−.238 (.066)**	.787
Family characteristics
Socioeconomic status	−.044 (.115)*	.956	−.047 (.114)	.954	−.044 (.115)	.956
Structure	−.016 (.157)	.983	−.026 (.157)	.973	−.015 (.157)	.984
Parent/guardian involvement	−.023 (.022)*	.976	−.023 (.022)	.976	−.023 (.022)	.976
School characteristics
Size	.056 (.041)^†	1.058	.059 (.041)^†	1.061	.056 (.041)^†	1.057
Poverty	.006 (.045)^†	1.007	.009 (.045)^†	1.009	.006 (.045)^†	1.006
Urban locale	.107 (.148)^†	1.113	.090 (.149)^†	1.094759	.109 (.148)^†	1.115

†

p ≤ .1. *p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001.

Table 3.

Logistic Regression Coefficients (Standard Errors) and Odds Ratio for Dropping Out for Latina/o Youth.

	Model 4		Model 5		Model 6
	B (SE)	OR	B (SE)	OR	B (SE)	OR
School securitization
Justice and fairness	—	—	—	—	−.051 (.058)	.950
Rules	—	—	—	—	.023 (.046)	1.023
Order	−.049 (.028)*	.951	—	—	−.033 (.028)	.967
Discipline	—	—	.917 (.154)***	2.503	.875 (.157)***	2.401
Student characteristics
Female	−.451 (.141)***	.636	−.376 (.143)***	.686	−.371 (.145)***	.689
Educational achievement	−.064 (.008)***	.937	−.061 (.008)***	.940	−.060 (.008)***	.941
School involvement	−.240 (.066)**	.785	−.260 (.065)***	.770	−.262 (.066)***	.768
Family characteristics
Socioeconomic status	−.048 (.115)	.952	−.060 (.116)	.941	−.064 (.116)	.937
Structure	−.020 (.157)	.980	−.049 (.159)	.951	−.055 (.160)	.946
Parent/guardian involvement	−.022 (.022)	.978	−.022 (.023)	.977	−.021 (.022)	.978
School characteristics
Size	043 (.042)^†	1.044	.074 (.043)^†	1.077	.065 (.044)^†	1.068
Poverty	.003 (.045)^†	1.008	.008 (.046)^†	1.008	.008 (.046)^†	1.008
Urban locale	.100 (.149)^†	1.105	.141 (.151)^†	1.151	.127 (.152)^†	1.135

†

p ≤ .1. *p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001.

Quantitative Results

Descriptive statistics

Table 1 provides descriptive statistics about the variables utilized in this study. On average, Latina/o students’ perception of school justice and fairness (M = 3.07, SD = 1.53), school rules (M = 5.18, SD = 1.98), and school order (M = 11.73, SD = 2.76) are generally at the midpoint for each of these aforementioned scales. Overall, approximately 21% of Latina/o students have been formally sanctioned by the school.

Student, family, and school characteristics

Table 2 presents the logistic regression analysis of dropping out. The baseline model explores the impact of student, family, and school characteristics on the likelihood of Latina/o students dropping out. Latina students have lower odds of dropping out than Latino students (b = −.459, odds ratio [OR] = .631, p ≤ .001). Increased educational achievement (b = −.066, OR = .935, p ≤ .001) and school involvement (b = −.238, OR = .787, p ≤ .01) reduce Latina/o students’ likelihood of dropping out of school. Higher levels of family socioeconomic status (b = −.044, OR = .956, p ≤ .05) and parental involvement (b = −.023, OR = .976, p ≤ .05) reduce the likelihood of Latina/o students’ dropping out of school. Latina/o students in larger (b = .056, OR = 1.058), poorer (b = .006, OR = 1.007, p ≤ .1), and urban (b = .107, OR = 1.113) schools are more likely to drop out of school. In general, these aforementioned student and school characteristics remain consistent throughout each of the models. The impact of family characteristics, however, is no longer significant in relation to the likelihood of Latina/o students dropping out of school once school securitization variables are considered.

School securitization

In Model 2 of Table 2, Latina/o students’ perception of justice and fairness are added to the analysis. Latina/o students who have increased perceptions that their schools are just and fair are less likely to drop out of school (b = −.060, OR = .941, p ≤ .05). In Model 3 of Table 2, Latina/o students’ perception of school rules is added to the analysis. Latina/o students who have increased perceptions that the school rules are clear and enforced are more likely to drop out of school (b = .004, OR = 1.009, p ≤ .1). In Model 4 of Table 3, Latina/o students’ perception of school order is added to the analysis. Latina/o students who have increased perceptions that there is order within their school are less likely to drop out of school (b = −.049, OR = .951, p ≤ .05). In Model 5 of Table 3, Latina/o students’ school discipline is added to the analysis. Latina/o students who have received a school disciplinary sanction are two times more likely to drop out of school (b = .917, OR = 2.503, p ≤ .001). Model 6 of Table 3 displays the comprehensive analysis of all the measure of this study. The findings indicate that school discipline is the only significant justice, fairness, order, and discipline factor associated with Latina/o students’ likelihood to drop out of school (b = .875, OR = 2.401, p ≤ .001). The following qualitative data will expand on these quantitative findings. In particular, our qualitative data explore justice, fairness, order, and discipline in larger, urban, and poorer high schools where Latina/o students have high drop-out rates.

Qualitative Methods

Data Collection

Qualitative data were collected in an urban city in the southwest, and these data come from a larger project that explored police–community relations in a Latina/o community. The research project had three phases. Phase I was an exploratory study that assessed how residents perceived and experienced the police. Phase II of the research encompassed gathering how law enforcement perceived the local community. As a result of data collected from law enforcement inside and outside of the school environment, Phase III was a necessary return to the community to conduct additional community interviews to help explain some of the new findings, with a particular focus on students. Youth were interviewed for Phases I and III, and these data are included in this article. To help protect the identity of the people who shared their high school experiences, we use the fictitious name of La Victoria to refer to the neighborhood where the research was conducted. La Victoria is a neighborhood in a 2-mile square radius and has a large high school catering to the local community. The high school in La Victoria has more than 2,000 students and 94% of the population is comprised of Latinas/os. The 4-year graduation rate is 75%. Criteria for student inclusion in the study are that participants had to reside in La Victoria and be high school students. Some of the students who participated in our study were former gang members, student athletes, and students who never participated in extracurricular activities. Semi-structured interviews were utilized to gather an insider’s perspective particularly from those respondents who experience social marginalization. The use of semi-structured interviews is a recognition that power dynamics exist in our society and participants from marginalized groups do a better job of explaining the social conditions in their community than do people from the dominant society (Collins, 1989; Moe, 2004). A total of 18 interviews were conducted with the youth. All but three of the interviews were conducted in English. Interviews were held in public parks or students’ homes. Moreover, qualitative data were collected from students who had not dropped out at the time of the study and had expressed the desire to attend college. Despite the limitation of not knowing whether these students later dropped out of school, the qualitative findings in this study reveal the lived experiences that could potentially lead to dropping out of school.

Qualitative Analytical Plan

Data produced from semi-structured interviews were analyzed through a technique called thematic content analysis. Thematic content analysis is a method used to identify, analyze, and report themes and categories from collected data (Braun & Clarke, 2008; Burnard, Gill, Stewart, Treasure, & Chadwick, 2008; Silverman, 1993). It is an ongoing process during and after data collection where themes and categories are verified and new ones created (Burnard et al., 2008). The interview protocol had various questions related to school justice, fairness, order, and discipline. During the interviews, students were asked questions about their background and demographics, including where they grew up, where their parents worked, and how they identified ethnically and racially. Next, related to school justice and fairness, students were asked whether they were treated fairly by teachers, other schools officials, and by individuals inside and outside their community. In regards to school order, students were asked about disruptions and gangs in school, relationships with other racial ethnic groups, how teachers treated them, and whether they felt safe in school. Finally, related to school discipline, students were asked questions about school suspensions and being kicked out of school as well as attitudes toward the police and school security, including the use of technology to provide campus security.

The completed interviews were then transcribed and imported into the NVIVO program (see QSR International, 2012). Next, interviews were read and coded in NVIVO by categories and then relevant categories were collapsed into themes. This process led to three major themes that help explain how youth experience and perceive school justice, fairness, discipline, and order. The first theme was differential treatment in community/school, and for this study, it was used as a measure of justice and fairness. The second theme was students’ views of the police that helped provide insights about discipline in the school. The third theme was awareness of school safety and helped explain how students view school order.

Qualitative Results

Students’ perceptions of differential treatment

Differential treatment emerged as a theme when Latina/o youth were asked their perceptions about how their teachers and coaches treated them. Brighouse (2003) argued in his theory of justice for education that justice demands students have equal resources and meaningful opportunities to fully develop as individuals. Therefore, differential treatment can be seen as an indicator of whether or not students experience school justice and fairness. The theme of differential treatment increases understanding of the school context in which these Latina/o students live their daily lives. In one example, a young Latina stated the following when asked about teachers who treat her poorly in school:

Usually, they’re Gringos [Whites]. But my geometry teacher is Gringo, but he speaks Spanish so, so and he understands it. So he’s not racist. And we’ve asked them if he would marry a Mexican woman. And he says, “sure. They’re amongst the most beautiful women in our country.” I also had an Apache professor, and he didn’t discriminate. He would tell the truth, tell us that some people will negate us opportunities, will close the doors.

According to this student, she experienced differential treatment from White teachers with some exceptions, and generally, students equated White teachers with differential treatment. This young woman’s perceptions fit with the literature which finds that students of color are much more likely than White students to perceive differential treatment by teachers (Ruck & Wortley, 2002). Similarly, other students felt Latina/o youth were treated differently by coaches who stereotyped Latina/o youth as poor athletes. For example, a young Latino stated,

I have seen it at South [High School] . . . with the coaches picking [on the Mexican kids and saying things like] “yeah, this is not the sport for you. Because you are Mexican, this is not the sport for you.” But they have never seen them play. They have never seen my friends play. How can you tell that I cannot play that sport when you have never seen me play?

Not only were teachers and coaches a source of perceived differential treatment but also White students who attend the predominantly Latina/o schools in La Victoria. A young woman from La Victoria stated that

[When] you pass [White people in the hallways and] you’re talking in Spanish, and there’s Gringos [Whites], sorry to call them this, but there’s Gringos that tell you, “Shut up! You don’t want to talk Spanish because it’s [the] United States.” And you’re like, “So! I don’t care. Who cares!” It’s when you’re talking with another person and they get in your conversation, so I’m like, “Who are you? What are you saying? This is my conversation with my friends, not with you.” But these are racist people.

Other students not only perceived that they were treated differently within their schools but also within more affluent communities in the surrounding suburbs. The students viewed the more affluent communities as having nice parks with green grass, safer communities, and recreational activities that are sparse in their communities. At the same time, they perceived that residents in the more affluent communities tended to treat them differently with visual cues. For example, while conducting one interview in the neighborhood of La Victoria, one student preferred that we interview her and her friends together. They stated about their experiences outside of La Victoria as follows:

Latino teenager:

You don’t see White people [in La Victoria].

Latina Teenager 1:

Yeah. You noticed an immediate attitude change [in the White community].

Latina Teenager 2:

Yeah!

Latina Teenager 1:

If they see you [in the White community] with your dark skin, your dark hair, they look at you like you are garbage. Like, “what are you doing over here!”

Latina Teenager 2:

You go over there to [the White community], my nephew lives over there, and it is like all nice. It is all calm and stuff. But nobody [from La Victoria] wants to live there.

Male teenager:

Probably if they see a Mexican walking down the street they call the cops. They call because they are scared [that] there is a Mexican walking down the streets.

In our study, students did not express that differential treatment in their schools and communities would lead to them to drop out of school. Instead, it was a reality of living and attending school in their community, and these were obstacles that had to be navigated to successfully graduate. Therefore, students who do not successfully navigate differential treatment are potentially at risk of dropping out of school as are students who experience law enforcement as a form of discipline.

Students’ views of the police

In schools today, school officials and administrators use police officers and technology to help discipline students (Hirschfield, 2008; Kupchik & Monahan, 2006). In this section, we discuss how views of the police and technological surveillance are viewed as forms of differential treatment, and in our modern society today, these experiences are directly linked to discipline. We begin our discussion with the police who work directly with schools through the use of school resource officers to ensure a safe environment for students. School resources are police officers whose salaries in some cases are paid by school districts or sometimes costs are shared between school districts and police departments. However, they remain employees of the police department. School resource officers are recruited to work in schools and sometimes they are assigned multiple schools. They have the same arrest powers as any police officer and they conduct investigations when criminal behavior is brought to their attention. The difference is that a school resource officer is more likely to also act as a counselor/social worker where she or he works to develop relationships with students in an attempt to gain their trust. It is not uncommon to hear of school resource officers talking to students in hallways or arranging some type of field trip for the students. Also, school resource officers are typically given an office on campus, and they will frequently work with the school administration to address disruptive/criminal behavior. Police officers do not typically establish this close of a working relationship with school administrators. As a result, school resource officers are likely to have more frequent interactions with students. Latina/o youth in our study believed that race matters in the types of interactions they experience with police officers in their communities versus those experienced by youth who live in more affluent areas. For example, a young male high school student stated,

Over there [in the White community], police officers do try to talk to people, and here it is more like they are those types that just look at you, like you’re crazy, like you are a criminal . . . Over here, a cop sees you walking down the street at nine o’clock at night, they stop and harass you. “Where are you coming from? Where are you going? What do you have in your pockets? Have you done anything lately?

Race and ethnicity shapes the daily experiences of the residents, including the youth who attend the local schools, and a part of those experiences are subtle forms of differential treatment. Our research shows that youth perceive police in the community differently than the police in the schools (i.e., school resources officers). In the community, the police are likely to harass and question them as a form of proactive policing. As a result, most of the youth in our study had negative attitudes of the police in their communities. However, school resource officers were sometimes viewed as more helpful and willing to talk to the students rather than constantly questioning them about their criminal activity. For example, one Latino high school student stated,

The resource officer, she thinks I’m her adopted son. So she’s very nice; she’s always helping me. So she really cares about me in a way. That’s what you call tough love. She’s always pushing us to do the right thing. She was the head teacher in another club. She’s the one; she works for the police department. And at the end of the year, they took us to Magic Mountain [and] camping. And this summer, they took us to Sea World.

Other Latina/o students saw law enforcement in school as another form of monitoring which they frequently experience by the police in their communities. Although they recognized that school resource officers were trying to prevent crime, they also viewed the police as an apparatus of social control whose purpose was to monitor their actions and behavior. A male high school student stated the following about the school resource officer:

He walks around, too, and sometimes when he sees groups gathered around, he will follow them, but he don’t make them know that he is following them. He has caught a few people doing some stuff . . . but some students are probably like, “Why the hell is he here. We don’t need him here to be watching over us. We are not doing anything bad.” I think he’s here both to help you and to watch over us. Like, say, he catches you doing something, he will probably talk to you about it [and] what might [be the result] in the future if you keep on doing it.

Similar to the differential treatment experienced by students in schools and their communities discussed above, perceptions of differential treatment by the police are another obstacle for the students as they move toward educational success. As the student’s quote above suggest, students are angry by what they perceive as unneeded and unwanted surveillance but at the same time wearily satisfied with the potential safety that it could provide. The students also suggest that discipline can be informal but they also know that more serious formal consequences are looming if the behavior continues. Today, school resource officers are a new form of social control that can potentially lead to student suspension or expulsion which can lead a student toward a trajectory to dropping out of school. However, not all students feel safe in school which helps inform our study about students’ experiences related to school order.

Students’ awareness of school safety

Although the police and other school security techniques are supposed to help the youth feel safe, they were more likely seen as another means of surveillance. Unlike previous research which finds youth feel safe in school and believe increased school security is unnecessary (Bracy, 2010), Latina/o youth have varied perceptions of school safety. In this study, most of the students stated they felt safe in school, in part, by developing their own strategies instead of relying on the various school security techniques. Students interviewed masterfully recognized real threats, such as unruly students who were sometimes gang members, and only by using a variety of informal security strategies were schools a safe place. One strategy used by the students and stated succinctly by a 17-year-old Latino student was “picking good friends and not looking for trouble” as forms of protection and avoidance of behavior that could get them suspended. Although Latina/o students in La Victoria generally felt safe, they were also victims of crime. This finding of feeling both safe and victimized in school is shared by one male high school student fromLa Victoria,

[P]ersonally I feel safe. But, like I said, there have been a couple of break-ins. My car is in the first parking lot [at my high school], and I have had a couple of break-ins; that’s right in front of security. I’m not sure how that happened.

There were other students who saw crime firsthand and did not view schools as safe, such as this 17-year-old high school Latino student who stated as follows:

Sometimes I feel safe, but other times, when I go to the restroom, there are guys doing drugs there. One time, I went to the restroom, they were sniffing stuff through their nose. I don’t feel safe sometimes. Most times, I don’t feel safe because you never know what will happen.

When students observe criminal behavior, they employ a strategy where they put their head down to show they are ignoring and/or avoiding the behavior and are also not likely to report the behavior to school officials. Another strategy utilized in school was spending their lunches and breaks in teacher’s classroom. The classroom was a small space where close friends and a respected school official seemed to offer a haven where students felt safe. For example, one young high school student stated the following:

Some of the students are a little rowdy and always looking for trouble. The only people I talk to sometimes is in the classroom. But at lunch, I hang out in the teacher’s classroom. I’m always in there. But I never hang around, basically the whole time I stay in the classroom. I talk to other students in my classes, but I don’t hang out with them as much.

Despite the fact that students recognized the presence of school resource officers, security guards, and surveillance cameras, these school security strategies did not increase school safety. Rather, relying on friends, ignoring and avoiding gang members, and hanging out in safe havens helped the students feel safe. For example, another Latino high school student stated the following when asked if school security measures made him feel safe:

It is mostly probably my friends because they are always with me, or I know where they are at. Because like we kick it in one classroom every lunch period and some of my friends go in there with their girlfriends and I go in there, me and my girlfriend, we kick it in there, talk, and whatever. It is mostly my friends because I am always around my friends, and security is not always going to be there when something is happening to you. The cameras might not be there when something is happening to you. The school resource officer might not be there. So, I mean, I will mostly stick around my friends.

Similarly, another student who was more likely to trust his friends from La Victoria than the school security officers stated, “sometimes the school does security and everything, but I mean if somebody like the gangs are after me then I got my friends too. And I know from experience that they are not going to let me down.”

For students who occasionally felt safe in school, many of them felt school security measures were not reliable. Without these informal strategies, it is possible that these youth could be at risk of dropping out of school. Some students did feel safe because of the discipline strategies and school security strategies used by the administration. These students felt school personnel were effectively securing the school, but overwhelming many felt these strategies were ineffective. Based on the findings of our research, we argue that school justice, fairness, order, and discipline are sources of tension between students and school officials in Latina/o schools and communities that could potentially lead to students dropping out. However, students adapt to their environment and, in some instances, create their own informal strategies in an attempt to successfully navigate the school process.

Discussion and Conclusion

There are two important quantitative results that need to be highlighted, with how school justice, fairness, order, and discipline influence Latina/o youths’ educational progress. First, quantitative results suggest that improved perceptions of school justice, fairness, and order can improve Latina/o youths’ educational progress. Those potential educational benefits of increased school justice, fairness, and order are negated once Latina/o youth are disciplined. Moreover, school discipline has the greatest relative effect in the quantitative analysis on completing high school or not for Latina/o youth. Second, qualitative findings indicate that Latina/o youth reports of detrimental treatment, particularly from school personnel, may potentially derail educational progress. Qualitative data help contextualize and highlight how efforts to increase school safety may be equivalent to over monitoring and criminalization.

For Latina/o youth who already experience differential treatment outside and inside their communities, the school effort to ensure a safe environment where students can thrive and graduate become another source of structural inequality. Our study suggests that Latina/o youth, indeed, want to attend safe learning environments and acknowledge that security and surveillance can be ideal tools toward ensuring their safety. On the contrary, it is also apparent that there is a line, although ambiguous, that Latina/o youth believe they are treated like criminals and they rely on several informal strategies to ensure school justice, fairness, and order. Moreover, it is possible that students who do not successfully create informal strategies could be at risk of dropping out.

Quantitative findings suggest that unfair and unjust perceptions of security practices could derail Latina/o educational success. Qualitative data highlight the tumultuous balance between contemporary school social control and securitization policies that are implemented to provide safe learning environments for youth may have an unintended consequence of criminalizing youth misconduct at school. Without a doubt, Latina/o youth want to attend safe schools; but, increased school security, surveillance, and stringent discipline practices may be ineffective and compromise educational progress. In other words, school securitization may come at a cost—the cost being Latina/o youths’ belief in detrimental treatment and diminished perceptions of school justice, fairness, and order and their educational progress.

Prior research demonstrates that perceptions of school justice, fairness, and order, especially for racial and ethnic minority youth, can have long-lasting detrimental impacts. Hagan et al. (2005) argued that because perceptions of justice and social institutions are formed at relatively young ages and remain persistent through adulthood, perceptions of unjust treatment within school for Latina/o youth may be facilitating distrust for many forms of government and social institutions. Moreover, Kupchik (2010) denoted the sentiment of the wrong lessons in relation to how the current discipline regime discourages students from thinking critically about power relations and governance. Students are learning that their voice does not matter—that students are powerless to change their environment or even to contest how they are treated when suspected of violating a school rule (Cooper, 2013; Kupchik, 2010). Latina/o youth may have become distrustful as a result of the differential treatment reported in this research. Although school justice, fairness, and order can have educational benefits, these perceptions and beliefs cannot be nurtured when differential treatment is the everyday reality for Latina/o youth at their schools. This study suggests that detrimental treatment may be contributing to diminished perceptions of school justice, fairness, and order which in turn may be derailing educational progress (i.e., dropping out) for Latina/o youth. It is also plausible Latina/o youth are learning or being taught the wrong lessons within schools.

This study used mixed methods to explore how aspects of school securitization, such as school justice, fairness, order, and discipline, are associated with Latina/o youth educational progress. The use of this mixed-method approach has several limitations in this research. First and foremost, this study could not align both the quantitative and qualitative data because interviewed Latina/o youth did not complete the same survey as the Latina/o youth in the quantitative study. Second, the construct of the perceptions of school justice, fairness, and order in the quantitative data is drawn from self-reports that may have some bias from perceived treatment. Thus, it is uncertain if the self-reports matched actual school justice, fairness, and order practiced within their schools. Despite these limitations, this study makes a strong contribution that increased school securitization may be having an unintended consequence of derailing Latina/o youth educational progress.

In conclusion, educational policy makers, school administrators, and community stakeholders should recognize that there is a complicated balance between addressing violence and providing healthy learning environments. School securitization may be educationally marginalizing Latina/o youth. Without a doubt, Latina/o youth need to not only attend safe learning environments but also believe that their school teachers and leaders are treating them fairly and justly. In communities and schools where violence can negatively affect educational progress, zero tolerance discipline policies cannot be the sole answer. A multifaceted policy approach that focuses on fostering school justice, fairness, order, and discipline, as well as addressing perceptions of differential treatment, is needed to ameliorate the violence within schools improving educational progress. This rings particularly true for a rapidly growing population of marginalized youth. Ensuring the educational success of a growing Latina/o population can result in social, political, and educational efforts to compete in a global market.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Anthony A. Peguero is an assistant professor of Sociology and research affiliate of the Center for Peace Studies and Violence Prevention at Virginia Tech. His research interests involve youth violence, socialization and marginalization, schools, and the adaptation of the children immigrants. He is also a member of the Racial Democracy, Crime, and Justice Network which holds the dual goals of advancing research on the intersection of race, crime and justice and of promoting racial democracy within the study of these issues by supporting junior scholars from under-represented groups.

Edwardo L. Portillos is an associate professor of sociology at the University of Colorado Colorado Spring. His research focuses on the criminalization of Latinas/os and police and community relations in Latina/o communities.

Juan Carlos González is an assistant professor of educational leadership at California State University, Fresno. His research and teaching interests include educational policy, diversity in U.S. education, and qualitative research methods.

References

Alexander

Entwisle

Kabbani

(2001). The dropout process in life course perspective: Early risk factors at home and school. Teachers College Record, 103, 760-822.

Arcia

(2007). A comparison of elementary/K-8 and middle schools’ suspension rates. Urban Education, 42, 456-469.

Bracy

N. L.

(2010). Student perceptions of high security school environments. Youth & Society, 43, 365-395.

Braun

Clarke

(2008). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101.

Brighouse

(2003). School choice and social justice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Brown

(2006). Understanding and assessing school police officers: A conceptual and methodological comment. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 591-604.

Brown

Benedict

W. R.

(2005). Classroom cops, what do the students think? A case study of student perceptions of school police and security officers conducted in an Hispanic community. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 7, 264-285.

Burnard

Gill

Stewart

Treasure

Chadwick

(2008). Analyzing and presenting qualitative data. British Dental Journal, 204, 429-432.

Cammarota

(2004). The gendered and racialized pathways of Latina and Latino youth: Different struggles, different resistances in the urban context. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 35, 53-74.

10.

Cataldi

E. F.

Laird

KewalRamani

(2009). High school dropout and completion rates in the United States: 2007 (NCES 2009-064). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

11.

Chen

(2008). Communities, students, schools, and school crime: A confirmatory study of crime in U.S. high schools. Urban Education, 43, 301-318.

12.

Children’s Defense Fund. (1975). School suspensions: Are they helping children? Cambridge, MA: Washington Research Project.

13.

Collins

P. H.

(1989). The social construction of Black feminist thought. Signs, 14, 745-773.

14.

Cólon

Sánchez

(2010). Explaining the gender disparity in Latino youth’s education: Acculturation and economic value of education. Urban Education, 45, 252-273.

15.

Cooper

K. S.

(2013). Safe, affirming, and productive spaces: Classroom engagement among Latina high school students. Urban Education, 48, 490-528.

16.

Dewey

(1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York, NY: Macmillan.

17.

Dinkes

Kemp

Baum

Snyder

T. D.

(2009). Indicators of school crime and safety: 2009. Washington, DC: U.S. Departments of Education and Justice.

18.

Dunham

Wilson

(2007). Race, within-family social capital, and school dropout: An analysis of Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians. Sociological Spectrum, 27, 207-221.

19.

Entwisle

D. R.

Alexander

K. L.

Olson

L. S.

(2004). Temporary as compared to permanent high school dropout. Social Forces, 82, 1181-1205.

20.

Fabelo

Thompson

M. D.

Plotkin

Carmichael

Marchbanks

M. P.

Booth

E. A.

(2011). Breaking schools’ rules: A statewide study of how school discipline relates to students’ success and juvenile justice involvement. New York, NY: Council of State Governments Justice Center.

21.

Gándara

Contreras

(2009). The Latino education crisis: The consequences of failed social policies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

22.

González

J. C.

Portillos

(2007). The undereducation and overcriminalization of U.S. Latinas/os: A post-Los Angeles riots LatCrit analysis. Educational Studies, 42, 247-266.

23.

Gordon

Piana

L. D.

Keleher

(2000). Facing the consequences: An examination of racial discrimination in U.S. public schools. Oakland, CA: Applied Research Center.

24.

Greene

J. C.

Caracelli

V. J.

Graham

W. D.

(1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11, 255-274.

25.

Hagan

Shedd

Payne

M. R.

(2005). Race, ethnicity, and youth perceptions of criminal injustice. American Sociological Review, 70, 381-407.

26.

Harlow

(2003). Education and correctional populations (Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

27.

Hill

N. E.

Torres

(2010). Negotiating the American dream: The paradox of aspirations and achievement among Latino students and engagement between their families and schools. Journal of Social Issues, 66, 95-112.

28.

Hirschfield

P. J.

(2008). Preparing for prison? The criminalization of school discipline in the USA. Theoretical Criminology, 12, 79-101.

29.

Hondo

Gardiner

M. E.

Sapien

(2008). Latino dropouts in rural America: Realities and possibilities. Albany: State University of New York Press.

30.

Jarjoura

G. R.

(1996). The conditional effect of social class on the dropout-delinquency relationship. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 33, 232-255.

31.

Kim

C. Y.

Losen

D. J.

Hewitt

D. T.

(2010). The school-to-prison pipeline: Structuring legal reform. New York: New York University Press.

32.

Kupchik

(2010). Homeroom security: School discipline in an age of fear. New York: New York University Press.

33.

Kupchik

Ellis

(2008). School discipline and security: Fair for all students? Youth & Society, 39, 549-574.

34.

Kupchik

Monahan

(2006). The new American school: Preparation for post-industrial discipline. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 27, 617-631.

35.

Milner

H. R.

(2013). Why are students of color (still) punished more severely and frequently than White students? Urban Education, 48, 483-489.

36.

Milner

H. R.

Tenore

F. B.

(2010). Classroom management in diverse classrooms. Urban Education, 45, 560-603.

37.

Moe

A. M.

(2004). Blurring the boundaries: Women’s criminality in the context of abuse. Women’s Studies Quarterly, 32, 116-138.

38.

Morris

E. W.

(2005). “Tuck in that shirt!” Race, class, gender, and discipline in an urban school. Sociological Perspectives, 48, 25-48.

39.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2004). Educational longitudinal study: 2002 base year data file user’s manual. U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

40.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2007). Educational longitudinal study: 2002 data file user’s manual. U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

41.

Noguera

P. A.

(2008). The trouble with black boys:. . . And other reflections on race, equity, and the future of public education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

42.

(2008). Do GED recipients differ from graduates and school dropouts? Findings from an Inner-City cohort. Urban Education, 43, 83-117.

43.

Peguero

A. A.

Shekarkhar

(2011). Latino/a student misbehavior and school punishment. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 33, 54-70.

44.

Portillos

González

J. C.

Peguero

(2012). Crime control strategies in school: Chicanas’/os’ perceptions and criminalization. Urban Review, 44, 171-188.

45.

Powell

C. L.

Jacob Arriola

K. R.

(2003). Relationship between psychosocial factors and academic achievement among African American students. Journal of Educational Research, 96, 175-181.

46.

QSR International. (2012). Software for qualitative research—From academic and social research to market research. Available from http://www.qsrinternational.com/

47.

Reyes

(2005). Discipline, achievement, and race: Is zero tolerance the answer? Lanham, MD. Rowman & Littlefield.

48.

Rios

V. M.

(2006). The hyper-criminalization of Black and Latino male youth in the era of mass incarceration. Souls, 8, 40-54.

49.

Rios

V. M.

(2011). Punished: Policing the lives of Black and Latino boys. New York: New York University Press.

50.

Ripski

M. B.

Gregory

(2009). Unfair, unsafe, and unwelcome: Do high school student’s perceptions of unfairness, hostility, and victimization in school predict engagement and achievement. Journal of School Violence, 8, 355-375.

51.

Rosenbloom

S. R.

Way

(2004). Experiences of discrimination among African American, Asian American, and Latino adolescents in an urban high school. Youth & Society, 35, 420-451.

52.

Ruck

M. D.

Wortley

(2002). Racial and ethnic minority high school students’ perceptions of school disciplinary practices: A look at some Canadian findings. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31, 185-195.

53.

Rumberger

R. W.

(2011). Dropping out: Why students drop out of high school and what can be done about it. Retrieved from http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/rese-arch/k-12-education/school-dropouts/why-students-drop-out-of-school-and-what-can-be-done/rumberger-why-students-dropout-2001.pdf

54.

Silverman

(1993). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analyzing talk, text and interaction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

55.

Skiba

R. J.

Horner

R. H.

Chung

C. G.

Rausch

M. K.

May

S. L.

Tobin

(2011). Race is not neutral: A national investigation of African American and Latino disproportionality in school discipline. School Psychology Review, 40, 85-107.

56.

Skiba

R. J.

Michael

R. S.

Nardo

A. C.

Peterson

R. L.

(2002). The color of discipline: Sources of racial and gender disproportionality in school punishment. Urban Review, 34, 317-342.

57.

Stewart

E. A.

(2003). School social bonds, school climate, and school misbehavior: A multilevel analysis. Justice Quarterly, 20, 575-604.

58.

Tashakkori

Teddlie

(2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

59.

Tyler

J. H.

Lofstrom

(2009). Finishing high school: Alternative pathways and dropout recovery. The Future of Children, 19, 77-103.

60.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). Current population survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, Ethnic and Hispanic Statistics Branch.

61.

Valenzuela

(1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S.-Mexican youth and the politics of caring. New York: State University of New York Press.

62.

Voelkl

K. E.

Welte

J. W.

Wieczorek

W. F.

(1999). Schooling and delinquency among white and African American adolescents. Urban Education, 34, 69-88.

63.

Wald

Losen

D. J.

(2003). Defining and redirecting a school to prison pipeline. New Directions for Youth Development, 99, 9-15.

64.

Watts

I. E.

Erevelles

(2004). These deadly times: Reconceptualizing school violence by using critical race theory and disability studies. American Educational Research Journal, 41, 271-299.

65.

Wong

C. A.

Eccles

J. S.

Sameroff

A. J.

(2003). The influence of ethnic discrimination and ethnic identification on African-Americans adolescents’ school and socioemotional adjustment. Journal of Personality, 71, 1197-1232.