Fact Sheet: The School to Prison Pipeline in Michigan
The school-to-prison pipeline is one of the most important civil rights challenges facing our nation today.
 The school-to-prison pipeline refers to the national trend of criminalizing, rather than educating, our
children.
 The pipeline encompasses the growing use of zero-tolerance discipline, school-based arrests,
disciplinary alternative schools, and secured detention to marginalize our most at-risk youth and deny
them access to education.
 Nationwide, in the year 2009, 14.3% of Americans were under the poverty level, but the figure was
35.7% for Black children.1 Although Blacks made up only 17% of the nation’s student population, they
were 34% of the students suspended and were 2.6 times as likely to be suspended as a white student
in 2000.2
 There is no evidence that students of color misbehave to a greater degree than white students.
However, they are punished more severely, often for behaviors that are less serious.3
 At the heart of Michigan’s school-to-prison pipeline problem is the disproportionate exclusion of
students of African descent from public schools.
o Ann Arbor School District’s Black students make up 18% of secondary students but received
58% of the suspensions.4
o Van Dyke School District’s Black students make up 32% of secondary students but received
58% of the suspensions.5
o Taylor School District’s Black students make up 20% of secondary students but received 35% of
the suspensions.6
Zero-tolerance disciplinary policies are often the first step in a child’s journey through the pipeline.
 Zero-tolerance policies impose severe discipline on students without regard to individual
circumstances and eliminate the common sense that comes with discretion exercised by school
administrators.
 Zero-tolerance was initially applied to federal education law with the passage of the Gun-Free Schools
Act of 1994 which mandated one-year expulsions for students who possess firearms.
 Michigan’s zero tolerance law has a broader reach than the federal legislation as it goes beyond
firearms to require the expulsion of students who possess a “dangerous weapon.” 7 As a result, the
Michigan zero tolerance law increases the chances of expulsion for all students, including students of
African descent who are already expelled at high rates that are disproportionate to their
representation in the school population.
 There is no evidence that zero-tolerance policies make schools safer or improve student behavior. But
zero tolerance policies cost children and families, and our society tremendously.8
 Research suggests that the overuse of suspensions and expulsions may actually increase the likelihood
of later criminal misconduct.9
1
Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Jessica C. Smith, U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, P60-238, Income, Poverty, and
Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2009, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 2010, p. 15, 65.
2
Johanna Wald & Dan Losen, “Defining and Re-directing a School-to-Prison Pipeline,” NEW DIRECTIONS FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT (No. 99, Fall 2003),
p. 2.
3 Advancement Project, EDUCATION ON LOCKDOWN: THE SCHOOLHOUSE TO JAILHOUSE TRACK (Mar. 2005), p. 8.
4 Id. at 21.
5
Id.
6 Id. at 22.
7 MCL 380.1311
8 ABA Juvenile Justice Committee, ZERO TOLERANCE POLICY: REPORT (Feb. 2001).



Many students who have been suspended or expelled have no alternative opportunities for learning or
other productive activities.
Studies show that when students are repeatedly suspended, they are at substantially greater risk of
leaving school altogether.10
Reducing punitive ways of isolating children from learning environments is an essential component of
allowing more children to become productive citizens and reducing the dropout rate.
Schools today rely too heavily on law enforcement, rather than teachers and administrators, to handle
minor school misconduct.
 Children are far more likely to be arrested at school than they were a generation ago. The vast
majority of these arrests are for non-violent offenses such as “disruptive conduct” or disturbance of
the peace.11
 Growing numbers of school districts employ police officers, or “school resource officers,” to patrol
middle and high school hallways. With little or no training in working with youth, these officers
approach youth as they would adult “perps” on the street, rather than children at school.
 The explosion of school-based arrests cannot be attributed to an increase in youth violence. Between
1992 and 2002, school violence actually dropped by about half. Despite the fear generated by a
handful of highly publicized school shootings, schools remain the safest places for young people.12
Alternatives to discipline and prevention-oriented approaches exist to address this issue.
 We advocate strategies that place less emphasis on suspensions and greater emphasis on keeping
students in school.
 There is a growing movement to scale back disciplinary procedures that lead to lengthy suspensions
and expulsions based on zero tolerance policies.13
 An essential component of this change in thinking about disciplinary procedures is to create a school
culture that encourages good behavior with significant buy-in from teachers, students, parents, and
community members.
 One strategy is positive behavior support, a system that rewards students for good behavior instead of
focusing on punishing students for doing something wrong.14
 Another method gaining attention from school administrators is “restorative justice,” which
emphasizes recognizing mistakes, repairing harm, and addressing future intentions.15 The school
district in Lansing introduced restorative practices in an elementary school, three middle schools, and
a high school for 2006-2007. The restorative interventions saved Lansing students nearly 1,500 days of
suspension.16
We must demand accountability for the education of all students.
 Michigan is one of only 11 states that fail to give students a right to a quality or adequate education.
 Students who have been expelled or suspended have no right to an education at all and no prospects
for access to additional education or means to re-enter the education system.
9
Advancement Project, EDUCATION ON LOCKDOWN: THE SCHOOLHOUSE TO JAILHOUSE TRACK (Mar. 2005), p. 16; Johanna Wald & Dan Losen,
“Defining and Re-directing a School-to-Prison Pipeline,” NEW DIRECTIONS FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT (No. 99, Fall 2003), p. 11.
10
ACLU of Michigan, RECLAIMING MICHIGAN’S THROWAWAY KIDS (2009), p. 23.
11 Johanna Wald & Dan Losen, “Defining and Re-directing a School-to-Prison Pipeline,” NEW DIRECTIONS FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT (No. 99, Fall 2003),
p. 15.
12 Id. at 11.
13
Donna St. George, “More Schools Rethinking Zero-Tolerance Discipline Stand,” THE WASHINGTON POST (June 1, 2011).
14 Leanne Italie, “New Book Takes on Zero Tolerance Fervor in Schools,” ASSOCIATED PRESS (July 19, 2011).
15 Howard Zehr, THE LITTLE BOOK OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE, Good Books (2002), p. 45.
16 ACLU of Michigan, RECLAIMING MICHIGAN’S THROWAWAY KIDS (2009), p. 23.