Ending-the-School-to-Prison-Pipeline.PPT2_

McDonald, Chief Judge Of The 13thJudicial District Peter Winograd, The UNM Center For Education Policy Research Presented At: The 21stAnnual Children’s Law Institute Albuquerque, New Me

Mexico’s School To Prison 

Pipeline:  What The Data 

Are Beginning To Show

Facilitated By:

Judge Louis P McDonald, Chief Judge Of The 13thJudicial District

Peter Winograd, The UNM Center For Education Policy Research

Presented At:

The 21stAnnual Children’s Law

Institute

Albuquerque, New Mexico

January 15-17, 2014

Acknowledgements

2

• Matt Montano, NM PED

• Jeanne Masterson, NM CYYFD 

• Tonna Burgos, Rio Rancho Public 

Schools

• Tara Ford, Pegasus Legal Services 

For Children

• Traci Neff, San Juan County

• Deborah Dungan, Esq, Supreme 

Court 

• Lisa Hamilton, NM PED

• Linda Carlisle, NM CYFD

• Fran Bunker, NM CYFD

• Annamarie Luna, NM CYFD

• Tom Dauphinee, UNM CEPR

• Dominica Montano,  Sandoval County District  Court

• Amy Ballard, UNM CEPR

• Christina Marie Reynoso ,  UNM CEPR

• Chris Erwin, UNM CEPR

• Alfie McCloud, UNM CEPR

• Hailey Heinz,  UNM CEPR

The Joint Education Task Force

3

• The Joint Education Task Force established by Order No. 12‐8300 and chaired by 

Governor Susana Martinez and Chief Justice Petra Jimenez Maes.

• The purpose is to provide collaborative advice, recommendations, and proposed 

strategies to this Court to address the educational needs of children and youth in the 

state’s custody and other high risk youth.

• Members include representative from the Court, the Governor, the Legislature, the 

Secretary of the Department of Public Education, and the Secretary of the Children, 

Youth, and Families Department.

• The Joint Education Task Force has focused on a number of goals including:

– Identifying the challenges and barriers to educational success including, but not 

limited to, attendance and truancy;

– Developing and implementing a sustainable collaborative model for ongoing 

systemic improvement of educational outcomes; and

– Developing and implementing a system to share data between child welfare, 

judiciary, and educational entities in order to make informed policy decisions and 

ensure individual student success.

Between The Schools And The Justice System?

4

and juvenile justice system.    Important questions include:

infractions vary over time by type of infraction and by student, school and community 

demographics? 

type of infraction and by student, school, and community demographics?

prevent infractions from occurring? Could those practices and polices be taken to scale 

across the state?

to infractions in ways that are most constructive for the student who committed the 

infraction and the well‐being of the other students in that school?

Courts are making significant progress in sharing data that can help us answer those 

questions. 

are arrested, suspended, expelled, or receive some other form of response to their 

infractions

The image part with relationship ID rId2 was not found in the file.

Student Infractions Grouped Into Four Major Areas

5

• Assault/battery with firearm 

• Assault/battery with knife or cutting object 

• Assault/battery with other dangerous weapon 

• Assault/battery aggravated with hands, feet, fist 

• Assault/battery simple 

• Other Violence ‐ Sexual battery 

• Other Violence – Homicide 

• Other Violence – Kidnapping 

• Other Violence ‐ Robbery using force 

• Other Violence ‐ Self Injury 

• Other Violence – General (includes Threat or 

Intimidation) 

• Sexual Harassment 

• Disorderly Conduct 

• Bullying 

Vandalism 

•Graffiti 

•Criminal Damage 

•Breaking/Entering/Larceny 

•Missing Property/Theft 

•Arson 

•Vandalism 

•Other Vandalism, Describe

Weapons, Substance Abuse, Gang Activity 

•Weapons Possession – Knife/Cutting 

•Weapons Possession – Other 

•Gang‐Related Activity 

•Drug Violation 

•Alcohol Violation – Possession 

•Alcohol Violation – Use 

•Alcohol Violation – Dealing 

•Tobacco Use 

•Other Weapons, Substance Abuse, Gang Activity – Describe

Firearms Possession (NOT to include toy guns, cap guns, 

BB guns, pellet guns, etc.) 

•Handgun Possession 

•Rifle/Shotgun Possession 

•Other Firearms Possession ‐ Describe in Comment  Field  

•Student Teach

Source: NM PED STARS Manual for School Year 2013-2014

The image part with relationship ID rId2 was not found in the file.

Responses to Infractions Are Organized Into Eight Categories 

6

1 Arrest/referral to justice system 

2 In school suspension 

3 Out of school suspension 

4 Expulsion ‐ no educational services – REGULAR ED 

ONLY; NOT to be used for Special Ed students) 

5 Modified Expulsion (still receiving some 

educational services) 

6 Sent to alternate setting by school personnel 

7 Sent to alternate setting based on hearing officer 

determination of likely injury 

8 Other/Unknown

Source: NM PED STARS Manual for School Year 2013-2014

Public Elementary and Secondary Schools, by State (2006)

7

South Carolina

Delaware

North CarolinaFlorida

Louisiana

Mississippi

West Virginia

Alabama

Georgia

Rhode Island

Michigan

CaliforniaNevada

Indiana

Arkansas

TennesseeVirginia

Maryland

   United StatesConnecticut

Pennsylvania

KentuckyIllinois

Ohio

Colorado

Washington

Alaska

Arizona

New Jersey

New HampshireTexas

Massachusetts

Hawaii

New Mexico

Kansas

WisconsinOregon

Oklahoma

Maine

Montana

New York

Minnesota

NebraskaIdaho

Iowa

Wyoming

South Dakota

District of Columbia

In 2006, New Mexico  suspended 17,140 or  5.27% students.  In 

2006, the national  average was 6.86%.

SOURCE: 2012 Digest of Educational Statistics. U.S. Department of Education,  Office for Civil Rights, Civil Rights Data Collection: 2006. (Data was prepared July 2008.)

NOTE: Suspension is excluding a  student from school for  disciplinary reasons for 1 school  day or longer. A student is counted  only once, even if suspended  more than once during the same  school year

Total Percent of Students Expelled From 

Public Elementary and Secondary Schools, by State (2006)

8

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

Louisiana

South Carolina

IndianaOhio

Nevada

Oklahoma

Washington

Oregon

TennesseeCalifornia

Mississippi

ColoradoTexas

Connecticut

NebraskaGeorgia

District of Columbia

   United StatesDelaware

Kansas

Alabama

Wisconsin

Pennsylvania

North Carolina

Illinois

Michigan

Wyoming

South DakotaArkansas

Virginia

Idaho

Maine

Kentucky

New MexicoMontana

Arizona

West Virginia

New Hampshire

Massachusetts

VermontUtah

Iowa

Florida

New York

MinnesotaMissouri

North Dakota

New JerseyHawaii

In 2006, New Mexico 

students.  In 2006,  the national average  was .21%.

NOTE: Expulsion is the exclusion of a  student from school for disciplinary  reasons that results in the student’s  removal from school attendance rolls 

or that meets the criteria for expulsion 

as defined by the appropriate state or  local school authority A student is  counted only once, even if expelled  more than once during the same  school year

SOURCE: 2012 Digest of Educational Statistics. U.S. Department of Education,  Office for Civil Rights, Civil Rights Data Collection: 2006. (Data was prepared July 2008.)

Total Count of Infraction Responses 

(Arrest/Referral to Justice System; In School Suspension; Out Of School Suspension; Expulsion – No 

Educational Services; Modified Expulsion – Still Receiving Some Educational Experiences)

9

16,566

17,148

15,818

15,000

15,500

16,000

16,500

17,000

17,500

Source: New Mexico Public Education Department. Note: Does not  include data on students sent to alternative settings or coded as  other/unknown

The image part with relationship ID rId2 was not found in the file.

This map shows infractions

of all types as a percentage 

of total district enrollment  for the 2012‐2013 school  year.

0.3% - 5%

5.1% - 10%

10.1% - 15%

15.1% - 36.3%

Source: New Mexico Public Education Department

10

Total Number Of Infraction Reponses 

By Gender, Ethnicity, and Special Education Status For 2012‐2013 

(N=15,818)

11

4,485

11,333

2,446

77 523

2,606 9,937

221 4,234

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

Female Male American

Indian/Alaskan

Native Asian Black or African American Caucasian Hispanic Multiracial Students W/

Disabilities Source: New Mexico Public Education Department. Note: Does not include data 

on students sent to alternative settings or coded as other/unknown

Male, Minority, and Students With Disabilities Have A Disproportionate 

Chance Of  Being Arrested, Referred to Justice System, Suspended or Expelled 

(2012‐2013)

12

48.6% 51.4%

10.2%

1.3% 2.2%

25.7%

59.2%

13.8%

28.4%

71.6%

15.5%

0.5%

3.3%

16.5%

62.8%

26.8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Female Male American

Indian/Alaskan

Native Asian Black or African American Caucasian Hispanic W/DisabilitiesStudents Percent of Total Student Population Percent Of Infraction Responses

Source: New Mexico Public Education Department. 

The image part with relationship ID rId2 was not found in the file.

Total Number Of Infraction Reponses 

By Age For 2012‐2013 (N=15,818)

13

185 281

337 313

468 732

1,746 2,284 2,634 2,360 2,022

1,406

805

190

43 9 3 0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Source: New Mexico Public Education Department. Note: Does not  include data on students sent to alternative settings or coded as  other/unknown

What Are Some Of The Questions We Have Yet To Explore?

14

1 How many students commit which kinds of infractions in schools each year?  

2 How have the number and types of infractions changed over time?

3 How many students commit multiple infractions and how do we handle those 

cases?

4 How do those infractions vary by type and by student, school and community 

demographics? 

5 What happens to those students and how do those consequences vary by 

type of infraction and by student, school, and community demographics?

6 What are schools and communities doing now in both practice and policy 

that seem to prevent infractions from occurring? Could those practices and 

polices be taken to scale across the state?

What Are Some Of The Questions We Have Yet To Explore?

15

respond to infractions in ways that are most constructive for the student 

who committed the infraction and the well‐being of the other students in 

that school?

8 Much of the current data deal with 15,000 students with infractions. In 2011‐

2012, New Mexico had over 51,000 students who were habitually truant. We 

need to know much more about the educational and juvenile justice 

outcomes for these students.

9 We need to know much more about the disciplinary policies in place in New 

Mexico’s schools. In 2010, the New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty 

reviewed the discipline policies of 12 of the state’s 89 public school districts 

and found that several of the districts incorporated zero tolerance elements 

into their policies.  This study should be replicated and include all of the 

districts and charter schools.

16

Tara Ford, JD, Pegasus Legal Services For Children

Tonna Burgos, Rio Rancho Public Schools,

Michele DeLese, School Resource Officer, 

Jeanne Masterson, Associate Deputy Director for 

Juvenile Justice Services, 

Matthew Montano, Director of Educator Quality,

Tracy Neff, Juvenile Facility Administrator

The image part with relationship ID rId2 was not found in the file.

CEPR.UNM.EDU

17