Black Girls Doing Time for White Boys’ Crime? Considering Columbine’s Security Legacy Through an Intersectional Lens

Abstract

The 20th anniversary of the deadly shootings at Columbine High School provides an opportunity to take stock of policy changes it prompted. Two were the increased use of security personnel and exclusionary discipline. Although neither started in response to Columbine, both were greatly expanded in the wake of that event. Both also contributed to the current punitive school climate that has negatively affected students, particularly students of color. This article considers the experiences of Black girls. This focus is important given the general lack of attention given to Black girls despite their greater disparity in rates of discipline especially for minor, subjective infractions. This article seeks to provide a summary of the current literature to highlight trends in the use of security, the resulting disproportionate effect on Black girls, and the need to bring an intersectional perspective into current calls to reduce exclusionary discipline. The patterns summarized in this article highlight the need for criminologists, in particular, to include the experiences of Black girls in the post-Columbine security and policy discussions.

Keywords

exclusionary discipline school-to-prison pipeline intersectionality school violence

The fatal shootings at Columbine High School in April 1999 prompted a variety of policy proposals to address a perceived growing epidemic of school violence (Muschert, Henry, Bracy, & Peguero, 2014; Muschert & Peguero, 2010). The most popular initial security responses involved implementing visible surveillance measures and enforcing rules with stricter sanctions (Addington, 2014). These changes sent a clear “get tough” message to students (both to reassure the fearful and discourage potential offenders) and parents (to placate demands for greater school safety). This reaction to Columbine played an important role in solidifying a punitive stance to school discipline, which would remain a dominant policy orientation for years after the shootings. The enduring nature of these changes can be attributed to continued concerns about school violence (which were reinforced by subsequent school shootings) and policies such as No Child Left Behind, societal tolerance to greater surveillance after 9/11, and reactions arising from fears of a minority threat in schools (e.g., Advancement Project, 2010; Hirschfield, 2008; Rocque & Snellings, 2018; Welch & Payne, 2010).¹

Two initial policy changes were the use of security personnel, particularly police, in schools and the reliance on exclusionary discipline in the form of zero-tolerance and related policies. Neither started in response to Columbine, but both were expanded in the wake of that event. This expansion was despite a lack of evidence that either tactic reduced school violence in general or fatal violence in particular. Both policies, though, contributed to an academic environment that disproportionately punishes students of color (Skiba, 2015). One reaction to this consequence has been an effort to explore alternatives to address school violence, including programs to promote positive school behavior and restorative justice strategies (Hirschfield, 2018). Initial evaluations find these options reduce exclusionary discipline, but not racial disparity in its use (Skiba, 2015; Vincent, Randall, Cartledge, Tobin, & Swain-Bradway, 2011). Scholars, especially those writing from an education perspective, suggest a need to include cultural responsiveness to these policies to directly address racial disproportionality (Gregory, Skiba, & Mediratta, 2017; Vincent et al., 2011). In this context, cultural responsiveness seeks for schools to recognize the “need to be responsive to the needs of diverse students” and to critically examine whether forms of discipline that in theory are developed to be race neutral actually work that way in practice (Skiba, 2015, p. 117).

This article considers the legacy of the increased presence of school security officers and exclusionary discipline practices in connection with specific consequences for Black girls. This focus is for a few reasons. One is to confront the irony of this pattern as the Columbine shooters as well as almost all the mass school shooters since have been White males (Hobbs, 2018). Another is to help remedy an omission in the literature. Although researchers have long recognized racial disparities in exclusionary discipline, only recently have they focused on the experiences of Black girls (Hines-Datiri & Carter Andrews, 2017). This gap ignores that Black girls can experience disparity rates greater than those for Black boys (Skiba, 2015) as well as White and Hispanic girls (Crenshaw, Ocen, & Nanda, 2015; E. W. Morris & Perry, 2017).² In addition, the lack of attention to Black girls minimizes the need for an intersectional perspective to explain these outcomes. In particular, an intersectional perspective can identify ways to tailor future policy suggestions. Criminologists in particular tend to offer generic policy responses when discussing school security. Important insights can be gleaned by considering discussions occurring in other fields, such as education, to address the disparity experienced by Black girls. This article seeks to facilitate this interdisciplinary conversation by providing a summary of the current literature to highlight trends in security, the disproportionate effect on Black girls, and the need to specifically bring an intersectional perspective into current calls for responses to reduce exclusionary discipline.

School Security After Columbine

The shootings at Columbine High School serve as an important benchmark for the present discussion. The shootings renewed—and dramatically amplified—calls for security to address and prevent future fatal school violence (Muschert & Peguero, 2010). Two main reasons likely explain this demand. One is the deadly nature of the incident itself both in terms of the number of fatalities (which at that time was the most in modern memory) and that it came on the heels of a string of school shootings the previous year (Addington, 2009; Muschert & Peguero, 2010). As Muschert and Peguero (2010) note, even if policies were not enacted to address school shootings per se, they were motivated by the overall climate of fear prompted by Columbine. Second, these concerns were amplified by the immediate and nonstop coverage of the shootings and immediate aftermath driven by the newly emerging 24-hr cable news networks (Muschert & Peguero, 2010). Two particular types of security measures adopted after Columbine are the use of security personnel and zero-tolerance/exclusionary discipline. Each is discussed below in terms of trends and effectiveness. Readers interested in additional information on trends in school security after Columbine are referred to the King and Bracy (2019) article in this special issue.

Security Personnel in Schools

The use of security personnel in schools did not start with Columbine. The presence of guards can be traced back to urban high schools in the 1970s (Addington, 2009). More recently, employment of police in schools can be attributed to federal legislation enacted before Columbine (see Mallett, 2016, for a summary). The Columbine shootings, though, pushed many more school districts to explore this option and expanded to all locations and grade levels (Addington, 2014). One reason for this change can be attributed to federal financial support. Federal agencies responded to the Columbine shootings by promoting the use of specially trained law enforcement personnel (known as school resource officers [SROs]). These SRO programs received federal support via both policy initiatives and hundreds of millions of dollars in Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) grants from the U.S. Department of Justice (Finn, McDevitt, Lassiter, & Rich, 2005). This monetary support continued through the Obama administration. After the deadly violence at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, the White House’s response included, in part, a proposal to fund 1,000 more SROs in schools nationwide (The White House, 2013). Although data clearly indicate an increase in the use of school security over time, relatively little is known about their effectiveness to reduce school violence overall or regarding fatal violence (see, for example, Addington, 2018).

Trends

The use of security personnel is one change that has steadily increased since Columbine (Addington, 2009; Robers, Zhang, Morgan, & Musu-Gillette, 2015). This pattern is reflected in all school levels with the greatest increase in primary schools (Addington, 2014; Musu-Gillette et al., 2018). Security personnel in schools can include private guards, regular police officers, and specially trained SROs. Recent federal data disaggregating security personnel by type (private security, law enforcement, and SRO) found increases across the board from the 2005-2006 school year to the 2015-2016 school year (Musu-Gillette et al., 2018). During the 2015-2016 school year, 45.4% of public primary schools and 72.3% of public secondary schools reported using some form of security personnel (Musu-Gillette et al., 2018).

Variation in the use of security personnel also occurs by school location. Schools in urban areas, particularly those serving disadvantaged and majority-minority student populations, historically relied on security personnel more than suburban and rural schools, and this pattern continued in the years after Columbine (Addington, 2014). Recent data from the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights found that schools with majority Black student enrollments were more likely to have security personnel than those with majority White student populations (Harper & Temkin, 2018). Scholars and advocates have raised concerns not only about the greater presence of security personnel in those urban schools but also about the manner in which they are deployed and their cost. For example, schools vary in how security personnel are used. Urban schools increasingly are delegating tasks traditionally conducted by school staff such as order maintenance and enforcement of school rules (Gottfredson, 2001; Welch, 2018). Finally, opting to hire SROs may limit budgetary funds for other resources. Middle and high schools with majority Black student enrollment were more likely to have police on campus than guidance counselors (The White House, 2016).

Effectiveness in reducing school violence

The increased use of SROs and security officers has occurred despite a lack of research documenting their effectiveness in reducing school violence. One set of commentators described the current body of scholarship in this area as “lean and methodologically limited,” which has resulted in inconsistent findings that cannot inform policy decision making (Mayer & Leone, 2007, p. 12). The studies that have been conducted are mixed in rigor and findings (Addington, 2018). One relatively consistent finding is that SROs contribute to increases in crime on some level (Blosnich & Bossarte, 2011; Brady, Balmer, & Phenix, 2007; Kupchik & Farina, 2016; Na & Gottfredson, 2013; Swartz, Osborne, Dawson-Edwards, & Higgins, 2016; Tillyer, Fisher, & Wilcox, 2011). This increase is often found for minor offenses. For example, Brady et al. (2007) found that major crimes decreased but that noncriminal police incidents increased for schools where police were added. Na and Gottfredson (2013) similarly found adding SROs resulted in an increase in the number of weapon/drug crimes and the reporting of minor offenses such as fights not involving weapons and threats of such fights to police.

Zero-Tolerance/Exclusionary Disciplinary

Columbine also prompted an expansion of zero-tolerance policies and reliance on exclusionary discipline. Zero tolerance can refer to a range of policies (Curran, 2019). At its most narrow, zero tolerance refers to specific behaviors, typically those connected to serious violence or possession of weapons or drugs, that mandate expulsion from school. Over time, zero tolerance has taken a more generic meaning and can be used to describe the increased use of exclusionary discipline (whether used as a mandatory punishment or not; Curran, 2019). The initial zero-tolerance policies can be traced to the Gun-Free Schools Act in 1994, which used mandatory expulsion to ban firearms from schools as a tool to combat gang and gun violence associated with the crack cocaine epidemic (Rich-Shea & Fox, 2014). Subsequently, schools expanded mandatory expulsion and suspension to include other weapons, possession of drugs and alcohol, and commission of assaultive and violent offenses (Curran, 2019; Hirschfield, 2008).

As with SROs, Columbine prompted expansion of zero-tolerance policies and a broader interpretation of behaviors that would be punished with suspension or expulsion (Justice Policy Institute, 2011). In the years since Columbine, schools continued to broaden their reliance on exclusionary discipline to include nonviolent offenses, attendance policy violations, and behavioral issues (including “willful defiance” categories; Advancement Project, 2010; Curran, 2019). Although many of these expanded policies do not mandate exclusionary discipline and thus do not technically constitute zero tolerance, their use reinforces the general trend to use a punitive approach to address behavioral and academic problems (Kupchik & Catlaw, 2014).

Trends

The latest figures from the U.S. Department of Education highlight the use of exclusionary discipline (Musu-Gillette et al., 2018). During the 2015-2016 school year, 37% of public schools reported needing to suspend or expel at least one student for a specific offense related to school security such as a fight, possession of drugs or alcohol, or possession of a weapon. These numbers actually understate the scope as they do not include the infractions where the use of suspensions is most common. Perry’s (2015) summary of a Children’s Law Center report illustrates this pattern. In a study of one urban school district, suspensions occurred the most often for violations such as disruptive behavior (41%) and truancy (22%). Fewer suspensions are associated with violations associated with violence such as fighting (20%) and possessing drugs (3%) or weapons (1%).

Disaggregated data highlight the trends over time. In U.S. public schools, suspensions increased 10% since 2000 (Nelson & Lind, 2015). The Advancement Project (2010) illustrated the increased use of exclusionary discipline in several states in the period of time since Columbine. For example, the number of expulsions increased by 30% and suspensions by 117% in Pennsylvania between 1999-2000 and 2006-2007 (Advancement Project, 2010). Another trend that U.S. Department of Education data recently highlighted is the use of suspensions across grade levels (Office for Civil Rights, 2014). These patterns included prekindergarten students, where approximately 6% of U.S. public school districts indicated suspending at least one preschool student during the 2011-2012 school year (Office for Civil Rights, 2014).

Effectiveness to reduce school violence

As with SROs, few studies have systematically evaluated the effectiveness of zero-tolerance policies to prevent violence at school. Existing evaluations suggest that zero-tolerance policies do not reduce school violence (American Psychology Association [APA], 2008; Hong, Espelage, Ferguson, & Allen-Mears, 2014; Rich-Shea & Fox, 2014). The initial goals of zero tolerance were to promote a safe school environment by using deterrence and having clear, known consequences to certain infractions. Studies of these policies, though, suggest that zero tolerance in practice has resulted in inconsistent application of punishments, negative consequences to the overall school climate, and a failure to deter problematic behavior (APA, 2008). Because zero tolerance policies remove students from educational opportunities, they result in a range of negative academic consequences, including poor grades, lower overall achievement, and greater risks of dropping out (Advancement Project, 2010; Committee for Children, 2018). Criminologists have focused on the association with the school-to-prison pipeline, or the greater contact with the juvenile and criminal justice systems, and disproportionate minority contact for students of color (Hirschfield, 2018; Rocque & Snellings, 2018).

Reliance on Security Personnel and Exclusionary Discipline at School

Scholars frequently discuss post-Columbine security trends in isolation. In practice, schools often use a mix of security (Tanner-Smith, Fisher, Addington, & Gardella, 2018). In particular, schools that rely on zero-tolerance policies also tend to hire SROs (Rich-Shea & Fox, 2014). Acknowledging this practical aspect of implementing security measures is important because the use of SROs and exclusionary policies interacts. SROs are associated with an increased use of suspensions (Brady et al., 2007; Finn et al., 2005; but see Na & Gottfredson, 2013) and arrests for subjective offenses (Theriot, 2009). One of the few meta-analysis studies in this area found that SROs were associated with higher rates of exclusionary discipline in those schools (Fisher & Hennessy, 2016). The Advancement Project (2010) raised its concern with what it termed “the intersection of harsh school discipline policies and expanded school security” and the increased use of police to enforce minor school rules as well as attendance policies (p. 16). This combination also is important to acknowledge because both the increased reliance on SROs and expanded use of exclusionary disciplinary have contributed to a continued (and arguably growing) climate where students of color face removal from school at a disproportionate rate than White students (Hines-Datiri & Carter Andrews, 2017; Skiba, 2015).

The Experience of Black Girls and Post-Columbine Security Policy

Columbine can be viewed as a critical event that prompted the expanded use of SROs and exclusionary discipline practices. A growing amount of research and policy attention is being devoted to the disproportionate impact of these changes (Crenshaw et al., 2015; Gregory et al., 2017). Much of this work, though, focuses on race in general or specifically on Black boys (Blake, Butler, Lewis, & Darensbourg, 2011). Little attention has been devoted to Black girls. Scholars have raised concerns that this omission not only conceals the harms experienced by Black girls but also limits an understanding of the full extent of racial disparity in school discipline (Hines-Datiri & Carter Andrews, 2017).

This limited attention may be attributed to a few explanations. One practical reason is a lack of readily accessible disaggregated data on race and gender at both the national and local levels to quantify and illustrate the disparity (National Research Council, 2003; Smith-Evans, George, Graves, Kaufman, & Frohlich, 2014). Another reason may be viewed as a lack of urgency. Black girls often are seen as “doing fine” in contrast with Black boys because they are more successful in school in terms of academic achievement, high school graduation, and postsecondary enrollment than their Black male peers (Hines-Datiri & Carter Andrews, 2017; Jacobs, 2018). This perspective may affect the need to fund and collect disaggregated disciplinary data. It also may affect interpretation of existing disciplinary data to further minimize the experiences of Black girls by emphasizing their smaller absolute numbers (especially in comparison with Black boys; Jacobs, 2018). Policies also may reflect this orientation and focus on Black boys to the exclusion of assisting Black girls (Crenshaw, 2015).

This focus is changing. One reason is likely increased collection and dissemination of data, particularly at the federal level, that identify the disproportionate suspension and expulsion of Black girls. In particular, Black girls can face higher rates of suspension and expulsion than girls of other races and sometimes boys of other races (Hines-Datiri & Carter Andrews, 2017; Skiba, 2015; Smith-Evans et al., 2014). These findings have spurred a small, but growing, body of scholarship to investigate these differences and advocate for incorporating an intersectional lens to interpret school discipline patterns.

Trends

Data from the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) consistently find disproportionate use of exclusionary school discipline for Black girls. The most recent data collection from the 2015-2016 school year reported that Black girls made up 8% of students but were 14% of students who were suspended and 10% of the students expelled (U.S. Department of Education, 2018). Black girls were the only female racial group disproportionately disciplined. Additional analyses of OCR data indicated that Black girls are overrepresented in referrals to law enforcement and arrests in school (M. W. Morris, 2016b).

Research using state and local disciplinary data finds similar patterns. A study of Boston and New York City public schools found Black girls disciplined at rates at least 10 times greater than White girls (Crenshaw et al., 2015). For expulsions, the rate for Black girls was 10 times that of White girls in Boston and 53 times that of White girls in New York City (Crenshaw et al., 2015). A study of Kentucky public school students considered office referrals and found Black girls 3 times as likely to receive a referral as White girls and the same likelihood as White boys (E. W. Morris & Perry, 2017). Another study of Black girls (and other non-Black girls of color) suggests these patterns are not limited to urban locations or poor neighborhoods but are reported by girls across location and occur in suburban and rural locations and across socioeconomic status (Onyeka-Crawford, Patrick, & Chaudhry, 2017).

Given these patterns, attention is being devoted to reasons for the disparity. One initial consideration is the nature of the violations that result in exclusionary discipline. Black girls tend to be disciplined for subjective rule violations (Skiba, 2015). Specific examples include “infractions such as dress code violations, disobedience, disruptive behavior, and aggressive behavior” (E. W. Morris & Perry, 2017, p. 128). A study of Ohio public school data from the 2012-2013 school year found Black girls were more likely than White girls to receive harsher discipline such as suspension for these minor infractions (Blake, Butler, & Smith, 2015). For out-of-school suspensions, Black girls received this punishment at a rate of 16.3 per 100 students as compared with 1.5 per 100 for White girls (Blake et al., 2015). When considering offenses that are less subjective such as truancy and possession of weapons or drugs, racial disparities disappear or skew to greater involvement by White students (E. W. Morris & Perry, 2017; Smith-Evans et al., 2014). Fighting is another less subjective offense, but the study of Ohio public school data found Black girls were more likely to receive suspensions for fighting than White girls (Blake et al., 2015). For out-of-school suspensions, Black girls received this punishment at a rate of 7 per 100 students as compared with 0.8 per 100 for White girls (Blake et al., 2015).

Explanations

Patterns of racial disparity in discipline persist even when controlling for poverty and underlying behavior (Skiba, 2015). Based on this pattern, education researchers have explored explanations that focus on race, such as implicit bias in the way rules are interpreted and enforced, teacher inexperience in classroom management skills, and a lack of understanding about cultural differences (Blake et al., 2011; Skiba, 2015). A growing number of scholars are emphasizing the need to add gender and an intersectional perspective to this discussion to explain this disparity affecting Black girls (Blake et al., 2011; Hines-Datiri & Carter Andrews, 2017; E. W. Morris & Perry, 2017).

Intersectionality recognizes that discussions of sexism in the absence of race and racism in the absence of gender ignore the unique lived experiences of Black women (Crenshaw, 1991). This intersection of race, gender, and class operates through a structural, political, and cultural representation system (Crenshaw, 1991). Scholars from a variety of academic fields have adopted and applied intersectionality to frame discussions and studies of Black women and non-Black women of color (Cho, Crenshaw, & McCall, 2013). Until recently, though, researchers have largely ignored its relevance for policies to support Black girls, especially in schools (Crenshaw, 2015; Wun, 2018). E. W. Morris and Perry (2017) emphasize the importance of expanding intersectionality as a framework to assess these policies and explain patterns of school discipline. In doing so, they caution that intersectionality should not be reduced to a mere “buzzword,” but rather researchers must fully engage the underlying concepts. Specifically, E. W. Morris and Perry (2017) argue that “using an intersectional lens should not just mention integrated categories [of race, class and gender] but must demonstrate how those categories combine in complex ways that fundamentally moderate their effects” (p. 144). Incorporating an intersectional perspective in this manner suggests three sets of possible explanations for disparity affecting Black girls: biased interpretation of subjective offenses, underlying reasons for involvement in less subjective offenses, and adoption of rules that target Black girls. These three are summarized below.

One group of explanations center around the subjective offenses for which Black girls are disproportionally punished. These explanations include implicit bias in rule interpretation based on a combination of race and gender (E. W. Morris & Perry, 2017). “Appropriate” school behavior for girls is assessed based on standards of femininity drawn not only on White females but also biased toward passive, heterosexual stereotypes (M. W. Morris, 2016b). M. W. Morris (2016b) documents examples of Black girls being subjected to discipline for actions that run contrary to paradigms of how girls “should” behave. Hines-Datiri and Carter Andrews (2017) highlight the role that stereotypes play in clashing of views of the same behavior, which is a conflict that has punitive consequences for the students. For example, teachers (especially White teachers) may interpret a student’s behavior as loud or aggressive, but students (especially Black girls) might see their own actions as a typical means of communication. Researchers view this situation as one where the communication norms of Black girls need to be considered in a multicultural context and one where their lived experiences are shaped by being marginalized in a larger patriarchal system (Crenshaw et al., 2015). A related explanation concerns ramifications of punitive school environments. For Black girls attending schools that do not support student participation in setting school norms and rules, being “loud” may appear to be the only option to be heard.

A second set of explanations centers on considering race and gender to provide a context for reasons Black girls may engage in behavior such as fighting. Focusing on fighting is important because it is one of the few less subjective offenses where Black girls are suspended at higher rates than White girls (Blake et al., 2015). In addition, the reasons for this disparity can be specific to the experiences of Black girls and highlight the need to include a trauma-informed perspective. M. W. Morris (2016a) highlights the need to see girls who fight as victims rather than only offenders as Morris emphasizes trauma disproportionately experienced by Black girls, including sexual and physical violence. Based on this perspective, M. W. Morris (2016a) identifies the need for administrators to better identify signs of trauma and ways to support girls grappling with the aftermath of victimization rather than subjecting them to punishment. Other scholars echo this point and note that aggressive, combative behaviors could be due to unmet emotional needs, and these students may be best served by counselors (Crenshaw et al., 2015; Smith-Evans et al., 2014). The post-Columbine school environment and its promotion of SROs likely exacerbate this situation, both directly (with increased police) and indirectly (with diverted money and resources). As noted above, schools serving majority Black student populations are more likely to invest in SROs and less likely to have guidance counselors on staff than their majority White counterparts (M. W. Morris, 2016a; Smith-Evans et al., 2014).

A third set of explanations focuses on the rules themselves, specifically those that ensnare Black girls due not only to their subjective interpretation but also to the fact that the rules do not acknowledge the particular challenges they impose. These rules include regulations regarding dress code, hair styling, and school uniforms (M. W. Morris, 2016b; Smith-Evans et al., 2014). M. W. Morris (2016b) discusses the way regulations that in theory are enacted to promote “uniform student presentation” but in practice target Black girls (p. 93). Examples include discipline over “disruptive” hairstyles that target locs or Afros and failure to adhere to uniform policies when the options do not fit all body types (M. W. Morris, 2016b; National Women’s Law Center, 2018).

Ways to Consider Black Girls in Alternatives to Exclusionary Discipline

Given the increased use of exclusionary discipline and its negative academic consequences, researchers and policy makers are working to identify alternatives to minimize both the use of suspensions and the disproportionate discipline of students of color. Two frequently cited programs are ones that support developing positive student behavior and providing restorative justice options (see Skiba, 2015, for summary; Justice Policy Institute, 2011). Policies that focus on student behavior take a preventive approach to addressing the reliance on exclusionary discipline, whereas restorative justice models offer alternatives for responding to violations after they occur. Initial evaluation studies suggest that although these approaches reduce the use of exclusionary discipline, racial disparities remain (Vincent et al., 2011; see Skiba, 2015, for a discussion). Although these programs are often described as being racially neutral, commentators now are recognizing the need to include race to directly address disparities (Carter, Skiba, Arredondo, & Pollock, 2017; Skiba, 2015). In particular, researchers are identifying ways to adapt programs by using culturally responsible (also referred to as culturally conscious) approaches (Gregory et al., 2017; Skiba, 2015; Vincent et al., 2011). These efforts are an important first step, but they need to be extended to incorporate explanations for disproportionality affecting Black girls and address their needs. The discussion below suggests ways to specifically include Black girls in culturally conscious programming.

Programs to support positive behavior

Several specific programs fall under the umbrella of promoting positive student behavior, including Positive Behavior Intervention and Support, School-Wide Positive Behavior Support, and Social and Emotional Learning (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2013; Justice Policy Institute, 2011). In general, they seek to promote a positive school environment by “clearly identifying behavioral expectations and age-appropriate social-emotional competencies” (Hughes, Fenning, Crepeau-Hobson, & Reddy, 2017, p. 201). Students receive lessons, which are repeated and reinforced in a variety of school contexts (Hughes et al., 2017). These programs reduce the reliance on exclusionary discipline, but they do not address the racial disparity. One reason may be due to the role of sociocultural biases in shaping behavioral expectations (Gregory et al., 2017; Skiba, 2015; Vincent et al., 2011). In response, researchers are exploring ways to include race and culture in these programs. A full discussion of these changes is beyond the scope of this article, but examples include adaptations that confront faculty and staff biases and use students’ lived experiences to promote and model expected school behavior (see Vincent et al., 2011, and Carter et al., 2017, for a discussion).

Given the disparity in discipline for Black girls, this work needs to be taken a step further to incorporate gender. Researchers are beginning to identify ways to include race and gender, specifically the context of Black girls, into culturally responsible responses (Blake et al., 2011). These suggestions often build upon racial adaptations but extend them to pay particular attention to the intersection of race and gender. One set of suggestions focuses on challenging implicit biases among teachers, staff, and administrators, in particular, biases that shape what constitutes “appropriate” behavior for girls. Programs could incorporate training for teachers (Gregory, Bell, & Pollock, 2014) and hiring more school mental health professionals who could work with teachers directly to address these biases (Blake et al., 2015). Another set of suggestions considers ways to leverage the backgrounds and experiences of Black girls to create an understanding environment and foundation upon which to model positive behavior. These adaptations could be complemented and reinforced by broader changes to develop a respectful learning environment that incorporates a range of voices in educational materials, such as examples of Black women leaders and scholars (Hines-Datiri & Carter Andrews, 2017; Vincent et al., 2011).

Restorative justice

Restorative justice covers a variety of programs such as conferences, mediation, and peace or restorative circles (Fronius, Persson, Guckenburg, Hurley, & Petrosino, 2016; Justice Policy Institute, 2011). Regardless of the specific format, the overall aim is to encourage communication between victim and offender, involve the victim and community in the process, repair harms caused, and reintegrate the offender back into the school community (Fronius et al., 2016; Justice Policy Institute, 2011). As with preventive behavior programs, school-based restorative programs are racially neutral but do not eliminate disproportionality (Skiba, 2015). In contrast with positive behavior programs, restorative justice programs have received less attention with regard to specific proposals to address racial disparity. Approaches tend to rely on the flexible and individualized nature of restorative justice programs as a basis for tailoring the process to consider race (Hughes et al., 2017).

Considering gender as part of culturally responsible responses is also important in the context of restorative justice. This consideration, though, takes a slightly different approach than was seen in the behavioral programs. An intersectional approach highlights two concerns for how restorative justice programs may be applied to Black girls. One involves the nature of their infractions and the appropriateness of using restorative justice programs for these situations. Restorative justice often requires the student to acknowledge her wrongdoing as part of the process. Black girls, though, are disproportionately affected by the enforcement of subjective offenses. In this case, it is not a girl’s underlying behavior that is the problem but rather the school staff member’s interpretation of the behavior or rule. Requiring Black girls to admit to wrongdoing in these situations runs counter to fostering improved relationships and a voice in the discipline process, which is a goal of restorative justice.³

A second concern involves Black girls who have violated objective rules against fighting or physical violence. As discussed above, this behavior for some girls may need to be understood through the lens of trauma. In this case, the restorative justice process may provide a support system, but this specific trauma-informed perspective needs to be included in the scope of the school’s restorative justice program rather than taking either a racially neutral approach or a culturally responsible one that does not include gender.

Moving Forward With Black Girls in Mind

The growing body of scholarship incorporating an intersectional approach to school discipline suggests several policy directions to address the underlying causes for the disparity in exclusionary discipline experienced by Black girls. Most of this work is occurring in the education area. One such project is the Discipline Disparities Research to Practice Collaborative and its series of reports that consider addressing racial disparities in school discipline (Gregory et al., 2014). Few interdisciplinary conversations are occurring, and continued work is needed to promote these concepts across fields. One natural extension is for criminologists to include these ideas in their policy recommendations concerning school security and ramifications of exclusionary discipline (such as the school-to-prison pipeline) rather than relying on fairly generic suggestions (as is more often than not the case). Additional research is needed to specifically test these suggestions and evaluate their effectiveness. The following discussion identifies four groups of policy recommendations that should be considered in this future work.

One set of policy recommendations builds upon the culturally responsible programs discussed in the previous section. Here, initial work can be devoted to adapting preventive behavior programs and restorative justice options to include gender and race. Additional efforts could expand on it and incorporate ways to train teachers on ways to understand trauma-related reasons for misbehavior or options to collaboratively engage students in problem solving (Gregory et al., 2014; Hughes et al., 2017). Other changes could incorporate an intersectional perspective into the learning environment. Scholars have noted that promoting strong, positive views of racial identity is one way to support Black girls and counter negative school experiences (Ashton, Graves, McGoey, Lovelace, & Townsend, 2018; Winn, 2013). For example, Winn (2013) describes her program of “Restorative English Education” as a means to use subject matter and classroom experiences to promote dialogue, understanding of lived experiences, and collaboration between teachers and students.

A second set of policies directly addresses the laws and regulations used to disproportionately punish Black girls. These changes involve enacting laws to limit the use of exclusionary discipline in certain cases and repealing laws that contribute to disproportionality. State legislatures are starting to confront the expanding use of exclusionary discipline. Between 2017 and 2018, 20 states considered laws to limit the use of exclusionary discipline for particular nonviolent offenses and behavior violations (Committee for Children, 2018). Other states are identifying subjective laws that are relied upon to exclude students, particularly Black girls. For example, after being sued by the American Civil Liberties Union, South Carolina repealed its 100-year-old “disturbing school” law that, in recent years, has been interpreted in a manner that disproportionately disciplines students of color (Hinger, 2018). This change also can occur at the local level. School districts exert extensive control over their codes of conduct and identification of appropriate discipline responses (Hines-Datiri & Carter Andrews, 2017).

A third, and related, set of policy recommendations is the need to include the voices and perspectives of Black girls and women when legislatures and school districts are developing policies in the first place as well as interpretation of existing regulations. Scholars have noted the need to gain insight from Black girls when policies are being considered (Crenshaw et al., 2015; Hines-Datiri & Carter Andrews, 2017; M. W. Morris, 2016b). This approach can have certain benefits. One is to avoid the potential for biased interpretation and application that can arise when their views are not included (M. W. Morris, 2016b). The other is to provide a positive means for their voices to be heard, which might serve to prevent behavior interpreted as “acting out.” Including students in a conversation about rules and policy can occur at the school or classroom level (Winn, 2013). Finally, commentators have recommended the important role schools can play in patterning civic engagement skills and providing students opportunities to give input when policies are enacted (Addington, 2016; Kupchik & Catlaw, 2014).

A final set of policy recommendations concerns the need to fund and support data collections to document the use of discipline in public schools, especially the types of offenses involved and disaggregation based on race and sex (Smith-Evans et al., 2014). These data can be used to help track problems and evaluate policy solutions. Hughes et al. (2017) highlight the importance of disaggregated data to inform interventions and note that Illinois recently required school districts to provide disaggregated data on their use of exclusionary discipline to identify patterns of disproportional use and work to mitigate these patterns. Data collection efforts also can provide a way to empower Black girls by including them in research and policy. Hines-Datiri and Carter Andrews (2017) encourage researchers to include Black girls in their work and allow the students to be advocates for change. The National Women’s Law Center (2018) provides a recent example of this type of partnership. The Center included Black girls on its team of researchers that examined the disproportionate enforcement of dress code policies.

Conclusion

The 20th anniversary of the deadly shootings at Columbine High School provides the opportunity to take stock of the policy changes implemented in the aftermath. Two such changes were the continued reliance on, and expanded use of, security personnel and exclusionary discipline. These changes contributed to the current climate where students are negatively affected, especially students of color. This article focused on the specific experiences of Black girls. This focus is important, given the general lack of attention to these students despite the fact that they experience greater disparity in rates of discipline and are punished for offenses that tend to be minor, nonviolent, and of a subjective nature. Reviewing the current literature highlights the need for criminologists to specifically include the experiences of Black girls in their school security recommendations. In particular, these recommendations need to consider ways to bring culturally responsible programs into policy discussions about school safety and violence prevention programs and to review the use of subjective rules that are disproportionately applied to exclude Black girls. To inform this work, investment needs to support ways to include the voices of Black girls and women and to collect detailed school-level data to track patterns of exclusionary discipline by race, gender, and infraction.

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.

Notes

Author Biography

Lynn A. Addington is a professor in the Department of Justice, Law and Criminology at American University (AU) in Washington, DC. Her research focuses on fatal and nonfatal violent victimization (with an emphasis on adolescents, emerging adults, and school environments) as well as policy responses for preventing violence and serving victims. Her work also considers the ways to better connect research with practice and policy. In 2016, she received AU’s top award for faculty research. Her publications have appeared in a range of outlets including the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Justice Quarterly, and Trauma, Violence and Abuse.

References

Addington

L. A.

(2009). Cops and cameras: Public school security as a policy response to Columbine. American Behavioral Scientist, 52, 1426-1446.

Addington

L. A.

(2014). Surveillance and security approaches across public school levels. In Muschert

G. W.

Henry

Bracy

N. L.

Peguero

(Eds.), Responding to school violence: Confronting the Columbine effect (pp. 71-88). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Addington

L. A.

(2016). Using constitutional law classes to address the “civic empowerment gap” among inner-city public high school students. Education and Urban Society, 48, 807-826.

Addington

L. A.

(2018). The use of visible security measures in public schools: A review to summarize current literature and guide future research (American University School of Public Affairs Research Paper No. 3240204). Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3240204##

Advancement Project. (2010). Test, punish, and push out: How “zero tolerance” and high-stakes testing funnel youth into the school-to-prison pipeline. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from https://b.3cdn.net/advancement/d05cb2181a4545db07_r2im6caqe.pdf

American Academy of Pediatrics. (2013). Policy statement: Out-of-school suspension and expulsion. Pediatrics, 131, e1000-e1007.

American Psychology Association. (2008). Are zero tolerance policies effective in the schools? An evidentiary review and recommendations. American Psychologist, 63, 852-862.

Ashton

Graves

S. L.

Jr. McGoey

Lovelace

Townsend

(2018). Promoting sisterhood: The impact of a culturally focused program to address verbally aggressive behaviors in Black girls. Psychology in Schools, 55, 50-62.

Blake

J. J.

Butler

B. R.

Lewis

C. W.

Darensbourg

(2011). Unmasking the inequitable discipline experiences of urban Black girls: Implications for urban educational stakeholders. Urban Review, 43, 90-106.

10.

Blake

J. J.

Butler

B. R.

Smith

(2015). Challenging middle-class notions of femininity: The cause of Black females’ disproportionate suspension rates. In Losen

D. J.

(Ed.), Closing the school discipline gap: Equitable remedies for excessive exclusion (pp. 75-88). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

11.

Blosnich

Bossarte

(2011). Low-level violence in schools: Is there an association between school safety measures and peer victimization. Journal of School Health, 81, 107-113.

12.

Brady

K. P.

Balmer

Phenix

(2007). School-police partnership effectiveness in urban schools: An analysis of New York City’s impact schools initiative. Education and Urban Society, 39, 455-478.

13.

Carter

P. L.

Skiba

Arredondo

M. I.

Pollock

(2017). You can’t fix what you don’t look at: Acknowledging race in addressing racial disparities. Urban Education, 52, 207-235.

14.

Cho

Crenshaw

K. W.

McCall

(2013). Toward a field of intersectionality studies: Theory, applications, and praxis. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 38, 785-810.

15.

Committee for Children. (2018). Recent trends in state legislative exclusionary discipline reform. Seattle, WA: Author. Retrieved from https://www.cfchildren.org/wp-content/uploads/policy-advocacy/exclusionary-policy-brief.pdf

16.

Crenshaw

K. W.

(1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43, 1241-1299.

17.

Crenshaw

K. W.

(2015, June 23). Black girls matter. Ms Magazine, pp. 26-29.

18.

Crenshaw

K. W.

Ocen

Nanda

(2015). Black girls matter: Pushed out, overpoliced, and underprotected. New York, NY: African American Policy Forum. Retrieved from https://www.atlanticphilanthropies.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/BlackGirlsMatter_Report.pdf

19.

Curran

F. C.

(2019). The law, policy, and portrayal of zero tolerance school discipline: Examining prevalence and characteristics across levels of governance and school districts. Educational Policy, 33, 319-349. Retrieved from https://journals-sagepub-com.web.bisu.edu.cn/doi/abs/10.1177/0895904817691840

20.

Finn

McDevitt

Lassiter

Rich

(2005). Case studies of 19 school resource officer (SRO) programs. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/209271.pdf

21.

Fisher

B. W.

Hennessy

E. A.

(2016). School resource officers and exclusionary discipline in US high schools: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Adolescent Research Review, 1, 217-233.

22.

Fronius

Persson

Guckenburg

Hurley

Petrosino

(2016). Restorative justice in U.S. schools: A research review. San Francisco, CA: WestEd.

23.

Gottfredson

D. C.

(2001). Schools and discipline. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

24.

Gregory

Bell

Pollock

(2014). How educators can eradicate disparities in school discipline: A briefing paper on school-based interventions (Discipline Disparities Series: Interventions). Bloomington, IN: The Atlantic Philanthropies.

25.

Gregory

Skiba

R. J.

Mediratta

(2017). Eliminating disparities in school discipline: A framework for intervention. Review of Research in Education, 41, 253-278.

26.

Harper

Temkin

(2018). Compared to majority white schools, majority Black schools are more likely to have security staff. Child Trends Blog. Retrieved from https://www.childtrends.org/compared-to-majority-white-schools-majority-black-schools-are-more-likely-to-have-security-staff

27.

Hines-Datiri

Carter Andrews

D. J.

(2017). The effects of zero tolerance policies on Black girls: Using critical race feminism and figured worlds to examine school discipline. Urban Education. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0042085917690204

28.

Hinger

(2018). South Carolina legislature repeals racist “disturbing school” law for students. ACLU Racial Justice Project. Retrieved from https://www.aclu.org/blog/racial-justice/race-and-inequality-education/south-carolina-legislature-repeals-racist

29.

Hirschfield

P. J.

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

30.

Hirschfield

P. J.

(2018). The role of schools in sustaining juvenile justice system inequality. Future of Children, 28, 11-35.

31.

Hobbs

T. D.

(2018, April 5). Most guns used in school shootings come from home. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-school-shootings-most-guns-come-from-home-1522920600

32.

Hong

J. S.

Espelage

D. L.

Ferguson

C. J.

Allen-Mears

(2014). Violence prevention and intervention. In Muschert

G. W.

Henry

Bracy

N. L.

Peguero

(Eds.), Responding to school violence: Confronting the Columbine effect (pp. 139-153). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

33.

Hughes

T. L.

Fenning

P. A.

Crepeau-Hobson

Reddy

L. A.

(2017). Creating safer and more nurturing schools: Expanding the capacity of schools in an era of future national reform. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 33, 195-213.

34.

Jacobs

C. E.

(2018). Remember, Black girls aren’t doing “just fine”: Supporting Black girls in the classroom. In Moore

Jr. Michael

Penick-Parks

M. W.

(Eds.), The guide for White women who teach Black boys (pp. 377-384). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Publishers.

35.

Justice Policy Institute. (2011). Education under arrest: The case against police in schools. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/educationunderarrest_fullreport.pdf

36.

King

Bracy

N. L.

(2019). School security in the post-Columbine era: Trends, consequences and future directions. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, XX, XX-XX.

37.

Kupchik

Catlaw

T. J.

(2014). The dynamics of school discipline in a Neoliberal era. In Muschert

G. W.

Henry

Bracy

N. L.

Peguero

(Eds.), Responding to school violence: Confronting the Columbine effect (pp. 53-70). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

38.

Kupchik

Farina

K. A.

(2016). Imitating authority: Students’ perceptions of school punishment and security, and bullying victimization. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 14, 147-163.

39.

Mallett

C. A.

(2016). The school-to-prison pipeline: A comprehensive assessment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45, 2675-2478.

40.

Mayer

M. J.

Leone

P. E.

(2007). School violence and disruption revisited: Equity and safety in the school house. Focus on Exceptional Children, 40, 1-28.

41.

Morris

E. W.

Perry

B. L.

(2017). Girls behaving badly? Race, gender, and subjective evaluation in the discipline of African American girls. Sociology of Education, 90, 127-148.

42.

Morris

M. W.

(2016a). Protecting black girls. Educational Leadership, 74, 49-53.

43.

Morris

M. W.

(2016b). Pushout: The criminalization of black girls in schools. New York, NY: The New Press.

44.

Muschert

G. W.

Henry

Bracy

N. L.

Peguero

(2014). Responding to school violence: Confronting the Columbine effect. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

45.

Muschert

G. W.

Peguero

A. A.

(2010). The Columbine effect and school antiviolence policy. Research in Social Problems and Policy, 17, 117-148.

46.

Musu-Gillette

Zhang

Wang

Zhang

Kemp

Diliberti

Oudekerk

B. A.

(2018). Indicators of school crime and safety: 2017. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2018/2018036.pdf

47.

Gottfredson

D. C.

(2013). Police officers in schools: Effects on school crime and the processing of offending behaviors. Justice Quarterly, 30, 619-650.

48.

National Research Council. (2003). Measuring access to learning opportunities. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

49.

National Women’s Law Center. (2018). Dress coded: Black girls, bodies, and bias in D.C. schools. Retrieved from https://nwlc.org/resources/dresscoded/

50.

Nelson

Lind

(2015). The school to prison pipeline, explained. Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute. Retrieved from http://www.justicepolicy.org/news/8775

51.

Office for Civil Rights. (2014). Civil rights data collection. Data snapshot: School discipline (Issue Brief 1). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://ocrdata.ed.gov/downloads/crdc-school-discipline-snapshot.pdf

52.

Onyeka-Crawford

Patrick

Chaudhry

(2017). Stopping school pushout for girls of color. Washington, DC: National Women’s Law Center. Retrieved from https://nwlc-ciw49tixgw5lbab.stackpathdns.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/final_nwlc_Gates_GirlsofColor.pdf

53.

Perry

B. L.

(2015). The overuse of suspension in American public schools threatens the success of all students. Retrieved from http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2015/01/05/the-overuse-of-suspension-in-american-public-schools-threatens-the-success-of-all-students/

54.

Rich-Shea

A. M.

Fox

J. A.

(2014). Zero-tolerance policies. In Muschert

G. W.

Henry

Bracy

N. L.

Peguero

(Eds.), Responding to school violence: Confronting the Columbine effect (pp. 89-104). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

55.

Robers

Zhang

Morgan

R. E.

Musu-Gillette

(2015). Indicators of school crime and safety: 2014. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2015/2015072.pdf

56.

Rocque

Snellings

(2018). The new disciplinology: Research, theory, and remaining puzzles on the school-to-prison pipeline. Journal of Criminal Justice, 59, 3-11.

57.

Skiba

R. J.

(2015). Interventions to address racial/ethnic disparities in school discipline: Can systems reform be race-neutral? In Bangs

Davis

L. E.

(Eds.), Race and social problems: Restructuring Inequality (pp. 107-124). New York, NY: Springer Science + Business Media.

58.

Skiba

R. J.

Arredondo

M. I.

Gray

Rausch

M. K.

(2016). What do we know about discipline disparities? New and emerging research. In Skiba

R. J.

Mediratta

Rausch

M. K.

(Eds.), Inequality in school discipline: Research and practice to reduce disparities (pp. 21-38). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

59.

Smith-Evans

George

Graves

F. G.

Kaufman

L. S.

Frohlich

(2014). Unlocking opportunity for African American girls: A call to action for educational equity. Washington, DC: NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund.

60.

Swartz

Osborne

D. L.

Dawson-Edwards

Higgins

G. E.

(2016). Policing schools: Examining the impact of place management activities on school violence. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 41, 465-486. doi:10.1007/s12103-015-9306-6

61.

Tanner-Smith

E. E.

Fisher

B. W.

Addington

L. A.

Gardella

J. H.

(2018). Adding security, but subtracting safety? Exploring schools’ use of multiple visible security measures. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 43, 102-119.

62.

Theriot

M. T.

(2009). School resource officers and the criminalization of student behavior. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 280-287.

63.

Tillyer

M. S.

Fisher

B. S.

Wilcox

(2011). Effects of school crime prevention on students’ violent victimization, risk perception, and fear of crime: A multilevel opportunity perspective. Justice Quarterly, 28, 249-277.

64.

U.S. Department of Education. (2018). School climate and safety (Issue brief). Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/school-climate-and-safety.pdf

65.

Vincent

C. G.

Randall

Cartledge

Tobin

T. J.

Swain-Bradway

(2011). Toward a conceptual integration of cultural responsiveness and schoolwide positive behavior support. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 13, 219-229.

66.

Welch

(2018). The effect of minority threat on risk management and the “new disciplinology” in schools. Journal of Criminal Justice, 59, 12-17.

67.

Welch

Payne

A. A.

(2010). Racial threat and punitive school discipline. Social Problems, 57, 25-48.

68.

The White House. (2013). Now is the time: The President’s plan to protect our children and communities by reducing gun violence. Retrieved from https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/docs/wh_now_is_the_time_full.pdf

69.

The White House. (2016). Civil rights data show more work is needed to reduce inequities in K-12 schools. Retrieved from https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2016/12/08/civil-rights-data-show-more-work-needed-reduce-inequities-k-12-schools

70.

Winn

M. T.

(2013). Toward a restorative English education. Research in the Teaching of English, 48, 126-135.

71.

Wun

(2018). Angered: Black and non-Black girls of color at the intersections of violence and school discipline in the United States. Race Ethnicity and Education, 21, 423-437.