Kendall Carlish

Honors U.S. History

December 2022

The School-to-Prison Pipeline: Education in the Best Interest of the Oppressor

In his 1970 novel, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Paulo Freire writes, “There’s no such thing as a
neutral education. Education either functions as an instrument to bring about conformity or freedom.”
(Paulo F., 1970, pg. 58) In Freire's eyes, education and oppression are deeply intertwined, with education
having the potential to act as a weapon of oppression or as a tool for the oppressed class to liberate
themselves. In recent years, the ramifications of the American education system, which effectively works
exclusively in the best interest in the oppressor class, have manifested in the form of the school-to-prison
pipeline; the frightening trend wherein at-risk students are pushed out of the public school systems and
into the criminal justice system at unprecedented rates.

Throughout the workings of his manifesto, Freire establishes the two contrasting, yet competing,
models of education. The first being the traditional model of education, which is referred to as the
“banking model” (Paulo F., 1970, pg. 45). The banking model depends on hierarchy in the classroom;
with the teacher being regarded as intellectually superior to the student. This model of education consists
of the teacher “depositing” information into the minds of the students (Paulo F., 1970, pg. 45). Due to the
nature of the student-teacher relationship that the banking method establishes, the student is expected to
memorize, recall, and not question, the material that is presented by the educator. Freire argues that this
method of teaching reinforces oppression by recreating oppressive social structures where one group is
inherently superior to the other and the superior group has the ability to determine what is right (Paulo F.,
1970, pg. 46). On the other hand, the “problem-posing” method is proposed as an alternative to the
traditional banking model of learning (Paulo F., 1970, pg. 52). The problem-posing model strives to create
a classroom environment where free thinking, questioning, and reflection are celebrated and a mutual
respect between educators and students is inherent. In the problem-posing classroom all traditional
methods of learning are eliminated; the role of teacher and student are filled simultaneously by everyone.
The “teacher-students” and “student-teachers” communicate to agree on the subject matter they feel are
important to discuss, and then the educator presents the agreed upon material as “problems” that the class
must collectively work towards solving (Paulo F., 1970, pg. 53). Friere emphasizes that the
problem-posing approach does not establish educators as more intelligent than the students, but instead
prioritizes the knowledge and experiences that everyone can bring to the group’s discussions and learning
process. In contrast to the inherently oppressive nature of the banking model of education, Freire believes
that the questioning and communicative philosophy that is integral to the problem-posing model can only
work towards ending the cycle of oppression, opposed to reinforcing it (Paulo F., 1970, pg. 53). Without
the capacity to be oppressive, the problem-posing model of education acts as the essential first step
towards freedom for the oppressed class. By rejecting the exploitive pedagogy that serves the oppressors
for one that aids the oppressed people in understanding and revolutionizing their society, the youth have
the educational tools needed to make the first steps towards crafting a society that allows all people to be
free.

Freire identifies the need to affirm one’s identity as human as the central problem of all human
beings (Paulo F., 1970, pg. 18). When oppression, exploitation, and injustice hinders the individual’s
ability to realize this state of affirmation, the individual is dehumanized. Freire continues to describe the
oppressor class as purely materialistic, explaining that oppressors view the oppressed as objects that they
have the ability to own. Regardless of the way that the oppressors consciously treat the oppressed, by
valuing the possession of their fellow man over humanity, the oppressors become dehumanized. Freire
outlines his theories of education with an emphasis on the deep connection between oppression and
education. Freire explains the flaws in the fundamental “banking” and “depositing” nature of traditional
education, which does not encourage free thinking, entertain curiosity, or promote equality in the school
environment (Paulo F., 1970, pg. 47). While the thought behind Feire’s radical proposals for liberation
via education originated during his experience as an educator in Brazil, the principles discussed by Freire
are evident within the contemporary American education system. The passive nature of the banking
model of education creates complaisant adults, such as the adult American population, that are available
for exploitation at the hands of the oppressors. In a capitalist society, such as in America, where a small
few suppress the masses, a school system that instills ignorance, fear, and obedience into students works
to benefit those the school system was made to serve. By continuing to enforce a methodology of learning
that enforces unequal dynamics and assists in upholding an oppressive society, schools welcome in a
plethora of injustices and social inequities that manifest into school, community, or national epidemics. In
recent years, the uniquely American phenomenon of the school-to-prison pipeline, which refers to the
zero tolerance disciplinary policies that funnel students out of public schools and into the juvenile
detention and prison systems at unprecedented rates. This oppressive system has preyed upon,
dehumanized, and devalued the at-risk students in the public school system (Chiariello E. & Wolfram W.,
2013, para. 8).
 For many students, the road to incarceration begins with the zero tolerance policies observed by
administrators, an increased reliance on police officers to carry out discipline, and the inadequate
resources in public schools (ACLU, 2022, para. 5). Zero tolerance discipline policies in schools mandate
predetermined and severe punishments, regardless of the context or circumstances of the offense. The use
of severe disciplinary action brought forth by the zero tolerance policies has allowed schools to bypass the
due processing for suspensions and expulsions (ACLU, 2022, para. 6). Additionally, frequent police
involvement when maintaining school discipline establishes schools as gateways in the pipeline.
Choosing to employ school police officers, who usually have little to no experience working with
children, to patrol the hallways puts students at a greater risk for school-based arrests, with no exception
for nonviolent offenses (ACLU, 2022, para. 7). Finally, the lack of resources in public schools pushes
students out of the school environment and leaves them at a greater risk for incarceration. Overcrowded
classrooms, a shortage of qualified teachers, insufficient funding for counselors, extracurricular activities,
and the necessary school supplies creates an abysmal learning environment that does not allow students to
reach their full potential. The failure to meet the educational needs of the students increases
disengagement and dropout rates, which leaves young adults at a greater risk for court involvement in the
future (ACLU, 2022, para. 5). These policies, in conjunction with the banking education model that is
adopted by thousands of American schools, positions at-risk youth for an unfortunate life trajectory
caused by an oppressive establishment. To quote Freire, “Dehumanization ... is not a given destiny but the
result of an unjust order” (Paulo F., 1970, pg. 18).

The pathway towards youth incarceration by way of the school-to-prison pipeline is further paved
with suspensions and expulsions. Suspensions and expulsions remove students from the learning
environment, causing a disconnect between the student and their community. When removed from the
classroom, students are put at greater risk for involvement in the criminal justice system (CfJJ, n.d., para.
2). Suspended students are often left unsupervised, where they can easily fall behind on coursework,
which leads to a greater probability of disengagement and drop-outs (ACLU, 2022, para. 5). According to
Citizens for Juvenile Justice, during the periods of suspension or expulsion from school, youth are twice
as likely to be arrested, even without any prior history of delinquent behavior (CfJJ, n.d., para. 2). Under
some jurisdictions, suspended or expelled students have no right to an education, leaving them to stay
home for the duration of their suspension or in the time necessary to enroll into a different school. Under
other rulings, suspended or expelled students are sent to disciplinary alternative schools (ACLU, 2022,
para. 10). Although disciplinary alternative schools are designed to serve and support troubled students,
the alternative nature of these facilities, coupled with the fact that they are occasionally run by private,
for-profit organizations, provides immunity to all educational accountability standards. Even though the
goal of the disciplinary alternative schools is returning students to traditional learning spaces, the lack of
curriculum and classroom hours places unprepared youth back into the school environment, or pushes
them further towards the criminal justice system (ACLU, 2022, para. 2). The zero tolerance policies set
by administrators acts as the driving force behind the enforcement of severe disciplinary punishments for
all offenses. The issue is only further exacerbated through the simultaneous presence of zero tolerance
policies and police officers in schools. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, the rates of
suspensions have increased greatly in response to the school-to-prison pipeline. In 1974, 1.7 million
students were suspended, and in 2000, 3.1 million students faced suspension (ACLU, 2022, para. 6).
Further, the National Institute of Health emphasizes the ability of disciplinary actions taken within
schools to serve as a turning point that has the ability to negatively impact the student’s future outcomes
as well. In addition to increasing the student’s odds of incarceration, suspension gives way to an
abundance of negative consequences, including lower levels of attendance, decreased self-esteem, higher
levels of anxiety, lower academic performance, and higher probability of dropping out (Hemez P., Brent
J., & Mowen T., 2020, para. 5).

Racial minorities and students with disabilities are disproportionately represented in the
school-to-prison pipeline, in both school discipline and youth incarceration (Chiariello E. & Wolfram W.,
n.d., para. 9). As of October 2019, Black youth were more than 4 times more likely to be detained or put
into juvenile detention facilities than their white counterparts (Rovner J, 2021, para. 1). In spite of the fact
that the Black youth only comprise 15 percent of American youth, 41 percent of all youth in placement
are Black (Rovner J, 2021, para. 3). As of 2021, the national rate for youth placement was 114 per
100,000. In the same year, the national rate of placement of Black youth was 315 per 100,000, which
starkly contrasts the national rate of placement of white youth, which was 72 per 100,000 (Rovner J,
2021, para. 4). In Massachusetts, where the school-to-prison pipeline is prevalent, Black youth are 4 times
more likely to be suspended in comparison to their white counterparts, and students with disabilities,
regardless of skin color, are suspended at 3 times the rate of their non-disabled peers (CfJJ, n.d., para. 4).
Due to the nature of the zero tolerance policy, over 65 percent of all violations resulting in suspensions
were for incidents not pertaining to crime, violence, or drugs (CfJJ, n.d., para. 4). When carrying out
harsh punitive measures for minor misbehaviors, schools occasionally ignore or bypass the due process
protections, which work to safeguard students from unmerited disciplinary action. When taking
disciplinary measures against students with disabilities, the disregard of the due process protections is
even more drastic (ACLU, 2022, para. 8). As a result of the disproportionate rates of exclusionary
practices, students with disabilities and racial minorities can easily fall behind in their studies. In 2021,
Massachusetts statewide average for days of instruction missed as a result of school discipline was 16 for
every 100 students. The statewide average for students with disabilities doubles to 32 for every 100, and
increases to 34 for every 100 for Black students. In contrast, the average for days of instruction missed as
a result of school discipline for white students was lower than the statewide average, with 10 for every
100 (CfJJ, n.d., para. 5). The lifelong impacts of the school-to-prison pipeline are detrimental, and for
some, they’re inescapable. Although most students who fall victim to suspensions, expulsions, and in
school arrests are non-violent, first time offenders (CfJJ, n.d., para. 6), any adolescent involvement with
school discipline or the criminal justice system creates lifelong disparities and challenges in their lives.
Although the pipeline sends thousands of students into the criminal justice system and away from school,
making the journey back into the education system is a journey not often completed. Following an
incarceration, students are faced with immense barriers that greatly hinder their ability to succeed in the
traditional classroom setting. In turn, the vast majority of students who enter the juvenile justice system
will never graduate from high school (ACLU, 2022, para. 14).

Due to the nature of a capitalistic society, around 40 percent of juvenile detention facilities in the
United State are private, for-profit organizations (LaTona F. & Fox J., 2020, para. 10). Each year, youth
detention centers, both nonprofit and for-profit, amass millions of taxpayer dollars (LaTona F. & Fox J.,
2020, para. 11). Coincidentally, it appears that the presence of private, for-profit juvenile detention centers
and public schools with zero tolerance policies tend to exist simultaneously in the same states (LaTona F.
& Fox J., 2020, para. 11). For example, Florida was one of the first states to adopt the zero tolerance
policy in public schools; with 1 out of every 2 public schools in Florida choosing to employ police
officers as a method of maintaining discipline (Flannery M. E., n.d., para. 8). With the help of zero
tolerance policies and school police officers, nearly 12,000 students were arrested in the state of Florida in
2012, with the majority of arrests for misdemeanors or disruption opposed to an actual criminal offense
(Flannery M. E., n.d., para. 8). Arrested students were then sent into the state’s residential juvenile prison
system, which is completely privatized (Flannery M. E., n.d., para. 9). Nationwide, around 50 percent of
all juvenile detention facilities are privately operated (Flannery M. E., n.d., para. 11). As of 2015, private,
for-profit companies held approximately 7 percent of state prisoners and 15 percent of federal prisoners.
With the percentage of prisoners held in private, for-profit facilities continuing to increase, the question of
an ulterior motive for youth incarceration persists.

“The capability of banking education to minimize or annul the student’s creative power and to
stimulate their credulity serves the interests of the oppressors, who care neither to have the world revealed
nor to see it transformed… Thus they react almost instinctively against any experiment in education
which stimulates the critical faculties and is not content with a partial view of reality and always seeks out
the ties which link one point to another and one problem to another.” (Paulo F., 1970, pg. 46). In this
excerpt, Freire describes the oppressor class’s standpoint on the banking system of education. As
established in chapter 1, the banking model of education works only to serve the interests of the
oppressors, who do not want to lose their control over the oppressed, and that care more about the
monetary value of their fellow man opposed to their humanity. By using education as a weapon of
oppression, the oppressors are able to maintain their control of the oppressed masses and the world around
them. An education system which prioritizes the best interests of the oppressor over the welfare and
prosperity of the people would stop at no lengths when catering to the greed of the oppressor. When
analyzing the American education system through the oppressor-oppressed relationship, it is important to
question who benefits from the exploitation, neglect, and dehumanization of students.

When looking towards the future for the American education system, it is important to remember
the transformative ability education has on the developing mind. As outlined by Freire, the connection
between education and oppression allows education to be utilized as a weapon of oppression or a method
of liberation from oppression; with the traditional, memorization based learning approach aiding the
oppressors in their conquests, and the latter acting as a solution to the issues caused by the oppressive
society. While analyzing the American education system with an understanding of the learning models
presented and proposed by Freire, we are able to see the resemblance between the described “banking
model” and the American public school system, and identify the inspired “problem-posing model” and the
praxis as the first step towards creating an education system that serves all people. To do so, we must
reject all forms of hierarchy, inequality, and thoughtless narration that take place within learning
environments. By doing so, we create a blank slate for educators and students alike, and give the people
the opportunity to create a space that values mutual respect, humanity, curiosity, relevance, and dialogue.
Through the use of dialogue within the problem-posing model, troubled students would feel empowered
and inspired to not only stay inside of the classroom, but to explore their newfound voices and to think
critically about socio-political issues that are relevant in their own lives. As written by Freire in the third
chapter of his pedagogy, “Dialogue further requires an intense faith in humankind, faith in the power to
make and remake, to create and recreate, faith in their vocation to be more fully human (which is a
privileged of an elite, but the birthright of all)” (Paulo F., 1970, pg. 89). Feire strongly believes that the
use of dialogue, in both action and reflection, was integral to understanding people, navigating and
developing a view of the world, and affirming one’s identity as human.

Outside of the classroom, school administrations have the ability to prioritize the wellbeing and
safeguard the futures of students, by enforcing changes that offset the harrowing rates of incarceration
among adolescents. Overturning zero tolerance policies, prioritizing the presence of counselors and social
workers opposed to disciplinary figures, and emphasizing the importance of keeping at-risk students in
learning environments, are all feasible adjustments which should be embraced by educators and
administration. The school-to-prison pipeline, which continues to rob thousands of adolescents of their
future, is a phenomenon to be left in the past. As stated in the second chapter of Freire’s manifesto,
“Looking at the past must only be a means of understanding more clearly what and who they are so that
they can more wisely build the future” (Paulo F., 1970, pg. 57). As affirmed human beings, it is our
responsibility to study the past and understand the present in order to take the first steps towards creating
a future free from oppression; a future that begins in the classroom.
 Works Cited

Chiariello, E., Williamson, L. A., & Wolfram, W. (2013). The school-to-prison pipeline. Learning for

Justice. Retrieved January 4, 2023, from

https://www.learningforjustice.org/magazine/spring-2013/the-school-to-prison-pipeline

School-to-prison pipeline. American Civil Liberties Union. (2022, April 4). Retrieved January 4, 2023,

from https://www.aclu.org/issues/juvenile-justice/juvenile-justice-school-prison-pipeline

Hemez, P., Brent, J. J., & Mowen, T. J. (2020, July). Exploring the school-to-prison pipeline: How

school suspensions influence incarceration during young adulthood. Youth violence and juvenile

justice. Retrieved January 4, 2023, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8277150/

Flannery, M. E. (n.d.). Follow the money: The school-to-(privatized)-prison pipeline. NEA.

Retrieved January 4, 2023, from

https://www.nea.org/advocating-for-change/new-from-nea/follow-money-school-privatized-prison-

pipeline

School to Prison Pipeline. CfJJ. (n.d.). Retrieved January 4, 2023, from

https://www.cfjj.org/school-to-prison-pipeline#:~:text=The%20school%2Dto%2Dprison%20pipeli

ne%20is%20driven%20by%20zero%2D,the%20presence%20of%20law%20enforcement.

Rovner, J. (2021, July 14). Black Disparities in Youth Incarceration

 The Sentencing Project. Retrieved January 4, 2023, from

https://www.sentencingproject.org/reports/the-color-of-justice-racial-and-ethnic-disparity-in-state-p

risons-the-sentencing-project/

LaTona, F., & Fox, J. (2020, August 23). The Hidden Abuse in For-Profit Juvenile Detention

Centers. Kids Imprisoned. Retrieved January 4, 2023, from

https://kidsimprisoned.news21.com/for-profit-juvenile-detention-centers/#:~:text=As%20of%20201

8%2C%2040%25%20of,Juvenile%20Justice%20and%20Delinquency%20Prevention.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. The Seabury Press.