Special Ed.

and STPP
1

CIL 699
Research Synthesis

Special Education and the School-to-Prison Pipeline

Imagine that you are a teacher who has several special education students in your
classroom, who receive special education services due to a learning disability. They sit in every
content area classroom not being able to access the general education curriculum because they
read below grade level, which affects their ability to accurately and fluently read a passage. Not
to mention, as they stumble to sound out unknown words, their comprehension of the passage is
minimal. You as a teacher know they have accommodations such as reading tests and quizzes
aloud, chunking assignments, and copies of notes to help support them and to help them succeed
in general education classes, yet do you choose to follow them or implement them? They begin
to feel not as successful as their nondisabled peers, who are considered to be typical students.
Furthermore, imagine being that student and told that because you have a learning disability you
will most likely be a juvenile delinquent and/or end up in prison due to enacting out a problem
behavior that requires significant consequences, which can lead to such places.
Much discussion has been generated by the idea that the presence of a learning disability
increases a childs risk of becoming a juvenile delinquent, (Malmgren, Abbott, & Hawkins, 1999,
p. 194). However, is a learning disability the sole reason as to why children with a learning
disability are at risk of becoming a juvenile delinquent or are there other factors that contribute to
this accusation? I chose to research this topic and discuss it further due to the findings that were
discovered during my groups research topic of the School-to-Prison Pipeline. Among the
findings that were discovered, a common characteristic of those who are at-risk for exclusionary

Special Ed. and STPP

2

discipline and/or possibly become a juvenile delinquent was those with special education needs.
Along with the research I read were these two quotations: Skiba, Arredondo, & Williams, (2014)
cited There is consistent evidence of disciplinary disproportionality among students with
disabilities (p. 550), which has also been referred by other researchers such as: Krezmien,
Leone, & Achilles, 2006; Raffaele Mendez, (2003) Analysis of the most recent CRDC data
revealed that students with disabilities being served under the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act are more than twice as likely to receive out-of-school suspension as their peers
without disabilities (US Department of Education, 2014). These indications led to my curiosity
of finding out more information as to why these statistics are true.
As a middle school, special education teacher, this information particularly drew my
interests and attention. This information is important to me, not only to be aware of, but to also
minimize any assumptions that there may be for students that receive special education services.
In order to understand why the statistics of juvenile delinquents with learning disabilities are
high, I compiled research studies and professional literatures to support the common hypothesis
amongst the research question, statement that I have. In addition to my findings and
understandings, I want to include any recommendations and suggestions for fellow educators
that may help condense the given statistics of special education students and the STPP.
Facing the Facts
What is the School-to-Prison Pipeline?
According to Skiba, Arredondo, & Williams (2014), The term School-to-Prison Pipeline
has been used widely among advocates, researchers, and policymakers to describe a trajectory
wherein out-of-school suspension and expulsion place students at risk for further negative

Special Ed. and STPP

3

outcomes, including involvement in the juvenile justice system (p. 556). Although there is not
one set definition of the term school-to-prison pipeline, this definition is commonly used the
most and agreed upon by most advocates, researchers and policymakers. In addition to this
common definition of students becoming at risk of involvement in the juvenile justice system
due to exclusionary discipline (i.e. a type of school discipline that removes a student from the
educational setting), there are other definitions that are more precise on who these students
may be and who is the cause of STPP. Of the top three, most recent definitions provided from
Skiba et al. (2014), the ideas of the definitions of STPP were the framework of the United States,
educational policies and practices, students of color, students with disabilities, and males in
which were all the primary focus for the definitions of STPP.
Of the definitions and ideas provided by Skiba et al. (2014) the common theme for the
definition of STPP is that the school setting is the beginning place/stage that will affect students
and their future based on disciplinary action at a local, state and federal level despite the criteria
given of male, students of color, and/or students with learning disabilities.
Special Education Student Statistics
As previously stated, a common characteristic of individuals labeled as juvenile
delinquents was that they had a specific learning disability or learning disability. Research
among several case studies and journal articles provided statistics that all support for this
common theme. Research by Wang, Blomberg, & Li, (2005) indicated that disabled students
were more likely to have disciplinary problems. According to Fink (1990) with respect to inschool referrals for troublesome behavior, there were significant differences between disabled
and nondisabled students. As stated by Cooley (1995) disabled students were more likely to be
suspended and expelled (as cited by Wang et al., 1995, p. 296). Also, According to Mallet (2014)

Special Ed. and STPP

4

youthful offenders (ages 12 to 17) with learning disabilities are also disproportionately held in
detentions centers (p. 147). He compared this trait with the disproportionate representation of
minority youth offenders. Mallet not only mentioned the two comparable groups demonstrating
disproportionate representation but also mentioned that minority youth offenders are also
misrepresented within the special education population. The statistics cited by Mallet (2014) are
alarming: in 2008, of the 342,000 adolescents detained in these facilities, 79 percent were male,
42 percent were African American, and between 30 and 35 percent had a special education
disability, learning disabilities being the most common (p. 147) They were drawn from a number
of other researchers, including: Rozalski, Deignan, & Engel, (2008); Sickmund, Sladky, and
Kang, (2010); Wang, Blomberg, & Li, 2005; White & Loeber, (2008). Research by Burrell and
Warboys (2000) cited The National Center of Education, Disability and Juvenile Justice (EDJJ)
reports indicating that more than one in three youths entering juvenile justice or correctional
facilities have previously received special education services. This statistic is very alarming
when the U.S. government website of www.youth.gov states approximately 1.7 million
delinquency cases are disposed in juvenile courts annually. National research has reported that
students with disabilities are up to 4 times more likely to be committed to a juvenile justice
facility than their nondisabled peers (Baltodano, Harris & Rutherford, 2005; Quinn, Rutherford,
Leone, Osher, & Poirer, 2005).
What is the cause of the problem?
Reasoning
After reading, these statistics and findings among researchers, one may conclude that
students with learning disabilities contribute to the population of youths in the juvenile justice
system. However, a constructive professional, will chose to analyze this information and

Special Ed. and STPP

5

examine the reasoning behind these statistics. One must begin to question these statistics and
begin to think of possible factors and contributors. One must ask why are these statistics true?
What is the cause of these statistics being true and why are students with learning disabilities
disproportionate in the juvenile justice system?
Among the research articles, many of the researchers stated three common hypothesizes
that support the main ideas of why adolescents with learning disabilities are vulnerable to
exclusionary discipline and/or juvenile justice involvement. The three common hypothesizes
are: school failure hypothesis, susceptibility hypothesis, and differential treatment hypothesis.
School Failure Hypothesis
According to Waldie and Spreen (1993) the school failure hypothesis holds that learning
disabilities produce academic failure, which leads to a negative self-image, which in turn results
in school dropout and delinquent behavior (p .417). Additionally, Swartz (1993) included that
academic failure in the classroom is also accompanied by reactions from teachers and peers,
which contribute to the development of delinquency (p.24). School failure is an association
mentioned by Skiba et al., (2014) in research of the School-to-Prison Pipeline. Students, who
become disengaged in school due to academic failure, begin to contribute to the ongoing process
of low academic achievement and performance. Academic failure is particularly associated with
students with learning disabilities because they are at a disadvantage compared to their typical
peers when it comes to academic achievement. Most of the students perform below grade level
in specific areas such as reading/math and/or perform below the average percentiles on
standardized and normative assessments.

Special Ed. and STPP

6

Susceptibility Hypothesis
The second hypothesis that contributes to a possible reason as to why students with
learning disabilities are at higher risk of becoming juvenile delinquent is the susceptibility
hypothesis. Waldie and Spreen (1993) stated, According to the susceptibility theory, children
with LD possess certain personality characteristics that make them more susceptible to
opportunities for engaging in delinquent activities (p.417). Some of these behaviors consist of
impulsivity, hyperactivity, spontaneity, and aggressiveness. With these possible characteristics
being present in a student with learning disabilities, it may lead to behaviors that can possibly
end with severe consequences (i.e. suspension, expulsion, juvenile courts etc.) Swartz (1983)
also stated the susceptibility rationale for a causal relationship suggests that certain personality
characteristics contribute to the likelihood of delinquency among some learning-disabled
children (p.24). However, on must know that these traits are not only limited to students with
learning disabilities but with all individuals.
Differential Treatment Hypothesis
The third hypothesis is the differential treatment. The differential treatment hypothesis,
which holds that youth with LD engage in the same kinds of delinquent acts and at the same rates
as nondisabled youth but are more likely to be arrested and/or adjudicated (Malmgren, Abbott, &
Hawkins, 1999, p. 194). To simplify this definition, this hypothesis comes from the
responses/reactions of people towards individuals with learning disabilities. It is their perceptions
that they have towards this group. These people include adults, professionals, and other
authority figures; not the individual with a learning disability. Personnel [are] more likely to

Special Ed. and STPP

7

respond more harshly or punitively because of lack of understanding of the learning disability
and its effect on the adolescents behaviors or interactions with juvenile justice system personnel
(Keilitz, Zaremba, & Broder, 1979; Office of Special Education Programs, 2001).
I personally see this assumption every day in the school the setting. Even myself, as a
special education teacher has had negative perceptions of students who are identified as ED
(emotional disturbance), which is one of the 13 categories of special education stated by the
Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). I have three students who are enrolled in my reading,
resource room that come from the self-contained classroom. Did the acronym ED rest in my
mind, when I knew these students would be attending my class, which ultimately altered my
perception on how these students may possible behave in my room? I would be dishonest if I
said it didnt and because of this, I had fallen into the concept of the differential treatment
hypothesis.
Call to Action
Solutions to the problem
When students begin the process of low academic achievement and performance and/or
display problem behaviors, an intervention needs to take place academically and behaviorally.
This can be the bridge for students with disabilities before future consequences by administration
result. For students who receive special education services, educators must be aware of
students accommodations. These accommodations per IEP are mandated by the Individuals
with Disabilities Act (IDEA) and Nevada Administrative Code (NAC). If teachers do not
implement students accommodations, they are contributing to school failure for these students.

Special Ed. and STPP

8

These accommodations help students with learning disabilities, academically be

successful in general education classes, but educators must also be aware of the behavior
component for students who may have a Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP). BIPs are part of a
childs Individualized Education Program and specify what strategies are to be used to increase
appropriate behaviors and decrease problem behaviors. (Hogan, 2015, p. 244). Teachers must be
aware of the target behavior, antecedents, and how to de-escalate the problem behavior if it
occurs. Again, educators must understand and implement these strategies as mandated by IDEA
and NAC.
As for susceptibility, one cannot change attributes that are acquired by having learning
disabilities. As mentioned earlier, some of the attributes consist of hyperactivity, impulsivity,
and aggressiveness. In the classroom, an educator can create a positive climate; this can help
minimize problem behaviors that may occur. Educators should also consider activities that
require movement and instruction that allows students to work in cooperative groups. This will
help students transfer their energy into an activity verses lecture and independent work.
For perception of students with learning disabilities, one must make the conscious effort
to oversee the label. For my situation, I have reached out, showed interests, spoke pleasantly,
and displayed caring attitudes to the students in my room who are identified as ED, since the
beginning of the year. I now have amazing rapports with them and can communicate with them
thoroughly without them shutting down. As with any relationship, getting to know someone
helps bring meaning and understanding to the way a person behaves, acts, thinks and speaks.
is critical that teachers build a rapport with their students
As mentioned earlier, sometimes there is a lack of understanding of learning disabilities
and other categories of special education. Educators must receive professional development in

It

Special Ed. and STPP

9

these areas so they are not being part of the cause of school failure and differential treatment.
Recommendations from Skiba et al. (2014) includes seeking to prevent conflict by developing
supportive student-teacher relationships, increasing academic rigor, improving cultural
responsiveness of instruction and classroom interaction, and establishing bias-free classrooms
and respectful school environments as well as provide support for teacher training and
professional development aimed at promoting higher levels of student engagement and improved
student-teacher relationships (p. 559).
Conclusion
In conclusion to this research that I have conducted the consensus is that having a
learning disability is not the sole reason for being at high-risk of the School-to-Prison Pipeline.
One cannot say that because a student has a learning disability he/she will end up in the justice
system even though there is a high population of adolescents who are in the justice systems that
indeed have special education needs. However, the conclusion statement, more so the conclusion
question, is as an educator, what am I doing to cause or prevent students with learning
disabilities from adding to the School-to-Prison Pipeline? In light of my synthesis paper, I hope
this paper will cause educators to question their practice, management, and their point of view on
students with learning disabilities.

Special Ed. and STPP

10

Bibliography
Baltodano, H., Harris, P., & Rutherford, R. (2005). Academic achievement in juvenile
corrections: Examining the impact of age, ethnicity, and disability. Education &
Treatment of Children, 28, 361379.
Burrell, S., Warboys, L. (2000). Special education and the juvenile justice system. Juvenile
Justice Bulletin. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.
Grigorenko, E. L., Macomber, D., Hart, L., Naples, A., Chapman, J., Geib, C. F., Wagner, R.
(2015). Academic achievement among juvenile detainees. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 359-368.
Hogan, A. (2015). Evaluating the use of behavioral skills training to improve staff's
implementation of behavior intervention plans. Journal of Behavioral Education, 242254.
Keilitz, I., Zaremba, B. A., & Broder, P. K. (1979). The link between learning disabilities and
juvenile delinquency: Some issues and answers. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 2, 211.
Krezmien, M. P., Leone, P. E., & Achilles, G. M. (2006). Suspension, race, and disability:
Analysis of state-wide practices and reporting. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral
Disorders, 14, 217226
Mallet, C. A. (July 2014). The "learning disability to juvenile detention" pipeline: a case study.
Children & Schools, 36,147-154.

Special Ed. and STPP

11

Malmgren, K., Abbott, R. D., & Hawkins, J. D. (1999). Ld and delinquency: rethinking the
"link". Journal of Learning Disabilites, 32, 194-200.
Office of Special Education Programs. (2001). 23rd annual report to Congress on the
implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education
Quinn, M., Rutherford, R., Leone, P., Osher, D., & Poirer, J. (2005). Youth with disabilities in
juvenile corrections: A national survey. Exceptional Children, 71, 339345.
Skiba, R. J., Arredondo, M. I., & Williams, N. T. (2014). More than a metaphor: the contribution
of exclusionary discipline to a school-to-prison pipeline. Equity and Excellence in
Education, 47, 546-564.
Swartz, S. L. (1983). Social class indicators and the relationship between learning disabilites and
juvenile delinquency. American Secondary Education, 12, 24-27.
Raffaele Mendez, L. M. (2003). Predictors of suspension and negative school outcomes: A
longitudinal investigation. In J. Wald & D. J. Losen (Eds.), New directions for youth
development (no. 99; Deconstructing the school-to-prison pipeline) (pp. 1734). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
US Department of Education. (2014). Guiding principles: A resource guide for improving school
climate and discipline. Washington, DC. Author.
Waldie, K., & Spreen, O. (1993). The relationship between learning disabilities and presisting
delinquency. Jouranl of Learning Disabilities, 26,417-423.