Running Head: JAILED BY BEHAVIOR 1

Jailed by Behavior: Exploring My Perceptions of Special Education Students’ Behaviors

and its Influence on the School-to-Prison Pipeline through Self-Study

Leah N.S. Carrington

George Mason University

JAILED BY BEHAVIOR 2

Table of Contents

Abstract ……………………………………………………………………………….......3
Rationale ………………………………………………………………………………… 4
Statement of the Research Problem …………………………………………………..…..7
Literature Review and Conceptual Framework …………………………………………. 8
Research Method ………………………………………………………………………. 14
Findings …………………………………………………………………………………21
Discussion …………………………………………………………………….…………26
Self-Critique ……………………………………………………………………….…….29
References ……………………………………………………………………………….31
Appendix ………………………………………………………………………………...36
JAILED BY BEHAVIOR 3

Abstract

This study explores perceptions of special education students’ behaviors and its

influence on the school-to-prison pipeline. The data collected for this personal history

self-study was a self-interview, teacher interviews, the use of a critical incident

questionnaire, and suspension and expulsion data for the District of Columbia Public and

Public Charter Schools. Participants all worked at the same school in the District of

Columbia where the student population was 100% African American, and free and

reduced lunch. Analysis of the data revealed that opinions on special education students’

behavior and the school-to-prison pipeline varied dependent on the position of the

educator. Even though preliminary results have shown that there is some correlation

between the behavior of the students and the school-to-prison pipeline, In conclusion

there needs to be a more in-depth study needs to be conducted. The study posed a few

limitations: this was a new methodology for a study that was completed within one

semester and the data showcased a group of teachers within one particular school.

Keywords: self-study, school-to-prison pipeline, special education students, behavior,

District of Columbia Schools

JAILED BY BEHAVIOR 4

Rationale

Working in the urban environment has opened my eyes to the many perils of our

education system. There is a never-ending list of all the things that inherently are flawed

within this system in poor environments. In my experience these same schools are

segregated with populations that are both100% African American and economically

disadvantaged. In high poverty urban schools there are definite racial and ethnic

differences in the enrollment; for example, 44% of blacks, 46% of Hispanics, and 27% of

American Indians/Alaska Natives attend these schools in comparison to 9% of whites and

17% of Asian/Pacific Islanders (Chittooran & Chittooran, 2010). Teaching in the urban

environment within itself is challenging, and with the outside factors it is an even more

difficult feat. Educators face an array of challenges that they are typically not trained to

handle when teaching students in high poverty urban schools (Chittooran & Chittooran,

2010).

I grew up on a beautiful island where I never felt as though possibility was ever

limited. I went to school with girls of all races and socioeconomic backgrounds and

neither of those things was determining factors for success. I believed that the sky was

the limit concerning both my dreams and opportunities. When I made the decision to

come to the United States to go to school I never thought that the move would be a

culture shock for me, as I came from a fairly Americanized island in my eyes. However,

when I got here I quickly realized that I had a place as a black woman and it was a place

of inferiority, the sky was no longer the limit and everything I did would be judged based

upon the color of my skin first. This new view of the world was a harsh reality with

restrictions based upon race, gender and socioeconomic status. At first my new reality did

not fully affect me as I lived within a bubble on the campus of Howard University a
JAILED BY BEHAVIOR 5

renowned historically black university. However, after leaving undergrad and moving

forward to teach in the District of Columbia many of these present inequalities were put

into perspective.

As a teacher working in high poverty urban schools for nine years I have lived the

suspensions, dropouts, retentions, frequent staff turnover, lack of discipline and non-

existent curriculum. With having students’ exposed to these things in my experience

there is a negative impact on their motivation within the school setting. I teach in

classrooms where materials are scarce and conditions are unsanitary. Rooms packed with

students on varying grade levels, ranging from students who cannot read to students who

perform on a college level. As a special educator working in the inclusion environment I

work with all students; some having special learning needs, others who are unidentified

but struggling with learning, and those who do not typically struggle with grasping

concepts once taught. The many factors previously mentioned make things in itself

difficult but when you add another layer of numerous disabilities within one classroom it

makes things virtually impossible. Disabilities span the spectrum throughout each class,

one classroom can house emotionally disabled students, learning disabled, intellectually

disabled and students considered to have other health impairments. Having this large

variety of special needs students in a classroom can affect the environment, making it

difficult to effectively educate the students.

Being a special education teacher for the past three years in high school, I have

been exposed to the challenges that are present when dealing with students and the

juvenile justice system. Challenges that include a lack of interest in being academically

successful, high absence rates and little family involvement to name a few. Its heart

wrenching to deal with kids who have disabilities that struggle within the classroom
JAILED BY BEHAVIOR 6

knowing that this issue will eventually lead to problems outside of the school setting.

Having over the years dealt with students who frequently dealt with legal problems I saw

the negative impact that being in and out of school had on their academic development.

Over time working in the high-poverty urban environment has fueled my interest

in African Americans living in systematic poverty as it relates to schooling. While

exploring such a broad topic my focus began to zero in on the topic of African American

students with disabilities that are repeat offenders and whether behavior has an impact on

the school-to-prison pipeline. I am hoping that this research will give exposure to how the

behavior of special education students can have an impact on their participation in the

school-to-prison pipeline. Optimistically, changing the way we speak about and treat the

behavior of special education students leading to a more positive outcome veering

students with disabilities away from the school-to-prison pipeline.

JAILED BY BEHAVIOR 7

Statement of the Research Problem

Improvements in the special education system due to Individuals with Disabilities

Education Act (IDEA) have not benefited all special education students equally, students

with disabilities from low-income households remain in a disadvantaged position

compared to their middle/upper income peers (Tulman, 2015). Special education classes

have become a normal part of the educational experience for many minority children and

they are far more likely to be identified in special education in comparison to their White

counterparts (Feist-Price, Lavergne & Davis, 2014). There is a concentration of children

with undiagnosed and unmet special education needs in the juvenile justice system

(Tulman & Weck, 2010). Many children that are a part of the school-to-prison pipeline in

the District of Columbia have disabilities that significantly impact their learning ability,

many of these children deal with conflicts with school personnel, and failure within

school. Leading to these same children disproportionately facing suspension and

expulsion, repeating grades and dropping out of school (Tulman, 2015). My research

question is directly based upon my experiences as a classroom teacher in the urban

environment In this study the research questions are as follows: 1) My exploration of my

experiences as a special education teacher on students behavior and its influence on the

school-to-prison pipeline. 2) How do I believe the urban environment influences special

education students’ behavior and the impact that it has on the school-to-prison pipeline?

3) What can I learn from my school colleagues in terms of their perspectives and insights

about the problem?

JAILED BY BEHAVIOR 8

Review of Literature and Conceptual Framework

Discipline and Special Education

In 1975, Congress passed the Education for All Handicapped Children Act

through this they mandated students have a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE)

for all students with disabilities in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE), by doing

this Congress required that schools fully incorporate students with disabilities into public

education (Osborne, 2001). In 1997 Congress passed the individuals with Disabilities

Education Act Amendments, among these amendments were requirements and provisions

specific to disciplining students with disabilities (Osborne, 1998). These amendments

were intended to provide guidelines for school administrators concerning the

requirements that the Act enforces on the disciplinary process. In these due process

safeguards Congress ensured the right to protest any contemplated school district action

regarding the provision of FAPE via an administrative hearing or judicial action. The law

also ensured that a school district could not change a disabled student’s educational

placement without the consent of the parent or guardian while any such administrative or

judicial proceedings were ongoing (Osborne, 1998).

With this change came provisions that focused on disciplinary action of students

with disabilities. Even years after the passing of the law educators and policymakers are

divided on the suitable balance that exists between the rights of students with disabilities

and the flexibility administrators need in order to ensure they are keeping the school

environment safe (Skiba, 2002). Many teachers and administrators believe that the

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act protects special education students from

experiencing consequences for disciplinary infractions allowing them to not be punished

under the school’s regular disciplinary procedures (Taylor & Baker, 2002). Despite, the
JAILED BY BEHAVIOR 9

controversy surrounding the issue special education law does not make it impossible for

administrators to discipline students with disabilities. It is a misconception that educators

are supposed to accept behavior that can be considered to be in part due to unclear

administrative procedures that are outlined under the Education for All Handicapped

Children Act of 1975 and the Supreme Court decision in Honig v. Doe (1988) (Taylor &

Baker, 2002). Honig v. Doe (1988) was a case in the Supreme Court that set the line

between a short-term discipline and long-term change that motivates the FAPE guarantee

for children with disabilities. Any disciplinary action beyond 10 days is considered a

change of placement activating the special education protections against arbitrary

removal. Since the passage of Public Law 94-142, court precedents (example: Doe v.

Koger, 1979; S-1 v. Turlington, 1981) have founded that students with disabilities can be

expelled if there is no relationship existing between the misconduct that lead to the

expulsion and the student’s disability (Skiba, 2002).

Students with disabilities must be held accountable for their behavior and special

education is not intended to make those students immune from school discipline (Skiba,

2002). There are two legal issues that present itself when a special education student is

disciplined especially when suspension or expulsion is the punishment. The first issue

looks at whether the punishment requires a “change in educational placement” requiring a

new individualized education plan (IEP) and other elaborate procedural safeguards as

outlined by Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Education for All Handicapped

Children Act, P.L. 94-142. The second issue looks at if the student is being punished for

behavior that is a manifestation of his or her disability. Most states while administering

P.L. 94-142 have taken the stance that special education students cannot be punished for

behaviors that are related to their disability (Flygare, 1981). Special education students
JAILED BY BEHAVIOR 10

may receive the same disciplinary infractions if the measure for behavior lasts 10 or

fewer days and 45 or fewer days for weapon or drug infractions. However, if the special

education student’s suspensions are recurrent and add up to more than 10 school days

within a school year or is more than 45 days for a serious infraction the local education

agency must conduct an assessment of the student’s behavior to implement a plan that

addresses the behavior problems. After conducting classroom observations and closely

scrutinizing the implementation the student’s individualized education plan (IEP), the

student’s behavior must be analyzed by the local education agency to determine whether

their behavior was a manifestation of the disability. If the committee determines it is a

manifestation of the student’s disability the IEP must be rewritten to correct the student’s

behavior but if it is determined to not be a manifestation of the student’s disability the

child is disciplined in the same manner as a student without a disability for the same

infraction. As administrators along with IEP teams develop behavioral intervention plans

they should keep in mind the overall goal in implementing a school wide discipline

(Taylor & Baker, 2002).

Special Education and the School-to-Prison Pipeline

School discipline disproportionately affects students with disabilities leading to

consequences such as high dropout and incarceration rates (Parks & Barajas, 2007).

African Americans represent fifteen percent of children below the age of eighteen but

make up fourteen percent of all school dropouts, twenty-six percent of all youths arrested,

forty-six percent of all those detained in juvenile jails and fifty-eight percent of juveniles

sent to adult prisons (Laura, 2011). The school-to-prison pipeline refers to the systematic

removal of students from the K-12 educational settings into settings of incarceration (jails

and prisons); this symbolizes one of the most significant social problems plaguing
JAILED BY BEHAVIOR 11

education in the United States (Bell, 2016). Research shows that this pipeline for many

minority students typically begins with school suspensions, escalates to expulsion and/or

school dropout and often results in incarceration (Bell, 2016). In addition to school

suspension, the disproportionate representation of minorities in special education is also a

very serious issue. Black children make up 17 percent of overall school enrollment and

33% of enrollment in classes for intellectually disabled students (Togut, 2011). There are

several factors that contribute to this inequality, including but not limited to unconscious

racial bias of educators, large resource inequities along the lines of race and class,

unjustifiable reliance of intelligence tests, educators unfair responses to the pressures off

high stakes testing, and power differentials between parents of students of color and

school officials (Togut, 2011). Research shows that intellectual and emotional disability

labels suggest deficiencies within the child that is associated with lower teacher

expectations and increasing academic failure (Bell, 2016).

Minorities as they are overrepresented in special education classes they are

similarly over represented within school discipline settings. In 2014 the Office of Civil

Rights reported that Black students were three times more likely to be suspended than

their white counterparts. In addition the same study showed that students with disabilities

were twice as likely to be suspended than students without disabilities (DeMatthews,

2016). Research shows that currently black students represent sixteen percent of the

school-age population but comprise thirty-two percent of those suspended and forty-two

percent of those expelled (Bell, 2016). Research also shows that racial minorities who are

diagnosed as intellectually disabled have a greater risk of being suspended and expelled

than their non-disabled counterparts (Bell, 2016). Research has consistently shown that

school suspension and high school dropout rates are primary predictors for incarceration
JAILED BY BEHAVIOR 12

(Bell, 2016). Research shows that within two years of dropping out fifty-six percent of

students with disabilities had been arrested, compared to nineteen percent that graduated

high school (Bell, 2016). According to data provided by the US Department of

Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Data Analysis system twenty-six

percent of African American adult inmates report having one disability primarily of a

cognitive nature.

Looking at juvenile delinquency in special needs populations 33,831 juveniles

were incarcerated throughout the country, 8613 were eligible for special education

services. With further examination based upon the disabling conditions of the 8613

juveniles eligible for special education services under IDEA, 47.7 percent were

diagnosed with an emotional disturbance, 38.6 percent were diagnosed with a learning

disorder, and 9.7 percent were labeled mentally retarded (Bell, 2016). Researchers show

that forty percent of incarcerated youth have disabilities compared with twelve percent of

students in typical public school settings. 47.4 percent of incarcerated youth are believed

to have an emotional/behavioral disorder, compared with 38.6 percent who are believed

to have a learning disorder (Houchins & Shippen, 2012). With this information it is not

surprising that a substantial number of youth in juvenile justice are far behind their peers

academically (greater than two grade levels) in basic reading, math and spelling skills. As

startling as the overrepresentation and limited academic abilities may be so is the

incidence of incarcerated youth with mental health problems. It is estimated that sixty

percent of youth in juvenile justice show three or more comorbid mental conditions

(Houchins & Shippen, 2012). Examples of this include an overrepresentation of those

with substance abuse issues, post-traumatic stress disorder, conduct disorders,

oppositional defiant disorders, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, anxiety and

JAILED BY BEHAVIOR 13

depression. The school-to-prison pipeline has become a method for providing services to

youth with serious mental health issues (Houchins & Shippen, 2012). There have been

extensive investigations of school punishment and its link to both socioeconomic and

racial factors, for example students who receive free and reduced lunch are at an

increased risk for suspension (Togut, 2011).

Critical Race Theory

This study is situated within Critical Race Theory (CRT), which offers an

important lens for addressing the school-to-prison pipeline, suspension and expulsion

rates, and the disproportionality that exists for minority students. CRT assumes that

taking a restricted approach to structural issues continues to authenticate faulty beliefs of

racism by working within these equal protection paradigms that do not account for the

systematic inequality that exists (Smith, 2009). A preliminary point for CRT is the

assumption that racism is normal and appears normal, natural and ordinary to the point

where it is unquestioned (DeMatthews, 2016). One of the most influential claims of CRT

is that race is not a natural or biological concept but rather a social and legal construct

(Simson, 2014). It is clear that in both special education and incarceration there is an

overrepresentation of minorities. It is clear that discrimination exists with prison

populations and schools.

JAILED BY BEHAVIOR 14

Research Method

Personal history was the self-study method I selected. This method allowed me to

reflect on my own experiences in dealing with special education students and the

influence of their behavior on the school-to-prison pipeline. Using a personal history self-

study approach, one is able to recreate major life-events that informed their professional

identity, and help them discover the meaning of their practice and the connections of that

practice to theory (Samaras, Hicks & Berger, 2004). This self-study method allows one to

explore the impact of my personal experience, culture, history, and learning experiences

on my teaching practice (Samaras, 2011). Personal history research is special in that the

researcher is not only the practitioner at the university level but instead all people in the

academy or K-12 schools, who study themselves and the relationship that exists between

their stories and current teaching practice (Samaras, Hicks & Berger, 2004).

My research question is my exploration of my perceptions of special education

students’ behaviors and its influence on the school-to-prison pipeline; a) How do I see the

impact of the urban environment on special education students’ behavior influencing the

school-to-prison pipeline? How do my colleagues understand it? b) How do I see the

behavior of special education students impacting the school-to-prison pipeline? How do

my colleagues understand it? Due to my topics focus around the policies dealing with the

behavior of special education students I chose to interview people that are still currently

in the field of education.

This study utilized multiple and varied data sources including a self-interview,

teacher interviews, a critical incident questionnaire, and suspension and expulsion data

for the District of Columbia Public and Public Charter Schools.

JAILED BY BEHAVIOR 15

Participants

In order for the participants to qualify for an interview, the requirements were that

they must have worked in an urban setting for a minimum of five years. The educators

that were participants in the study all worked at the same urban high school in

Washington, DC. Over the years the participants that I interviewed went from being mere

colleagues to becoming professional friends. I work with one of the participants as their

co-teacher, I am a part of the same department team with the self-contained special

educator, both the dean and assistant principal work exclusively with the academy that I

am a part of. One participant teaches primarily 12th grade environmental science, the

other two participant teaches history to special education students from a variety of grade

levels in the self-contained environment, the dean participant deals with discipline issues

related to the 11th and 12th grade students, and the administrator participant was the

principal assigned to the 12th grade (see table 1).

Data Collection

I chose to interview an array of people including myself in the school

environment so that I can get different perspectives surrounding the issue. I interviewed

both general and special education teachers, a dean and an assistant principal. The

general education teacher worked alongside a special education teacher in the inclusion

classroom setting, and the special education teacher worked within the self-contained

education environment. My choice to use a mix of general educators and special

educators was largely because I wanted the viewpoint of teachers that have a direct

teaching relationship with special education students and deal directly with behaviors in

the classroom. I also chose to interview both a dean and an administrator as they deal
JAILED BY BEHAVIOR 16

with the policy side of discipline within a school building and can give a different

outlook as the person who handles consequences based upon disciplinary infractions.

Educators in any atmosphere need a setting where there is a high level of support

that is required from your coworkers in order for one to be truly successful. This is true

especially in the urban environment that is extremely taxing, demanding and even at

times daunting. When functioning under such circumstances educators become sounding

boards and cheerleaders for one another. In order to develop these relationships there

needs to be a level of trust. Working in the same school setting can allow for a

relationship of mutual trust and respect to develop. The participants and I established a

trusting bond prior to the study, which not only encouraged them to participate but I

believe it allowed them to willingly open up without reservation.

When introducing the study to my participants I informed them that the study was

for my graduate school class Research Methods in Self-Study of Professional Practice. I

then gave a brief explanation as to what the study was analyzing which included

discussing my research question, and I allowed them to read the interview protocol before

the interview. Before I began the interview I ensured each participant that the information

they provided was only going to be used within the confines of the class and no one in the

school district would have access to their responses. Having had many transparent

conversations with the participants as well as many other teachers over the years I

believed that I knew to some extent their thinking surrounding the topic. My prior

knowledge as well as my research questions helped me structure my interview questions

strategically in an attempt to gain the results that focused specifically on special

education students and behavior impacting the school-to-prison pipeline as I expected

JAILED BY BEHAVIOR 17

and ultimately wanted. However, there were times during the interview that I had to ask

follow up questions in order to get a better understanding of the participants response.

In order to collect the data I made appointments with the participants to have

formal sit down interviews at a time that was possible for me but more importantly

convenient for them. I staggered my interviews with the five participants over a course of

two weeks. According to Dilley (2004) interviewing gives insight into the context of

people’s behavior and provides a way for researchers to understand the meaning of the

behavior. In order to accurately conduct interviews with the participants; I created an

interview protocol with questioning that was aimed at answering my research question.

The interview protocol offers consistency when conducting an interview ensuring that

specific topics are discussed that relate to the research question (Hunter, 2012). The

protocol revolved around the participants’ perceptions about special education students’

behavior and the influence it has on the school-to-prison pipeline. Using the same

interview protocol given to the participants I also conducted a self-interview prior to my

interviews with the participants. Before interviewing my colleague participants I

interviewed myself using the same interview protocol. Likewise, I taped my interview

and took notes based on my responses to the questions. All these things were done

similarly to ensure uniformity and validity across the data.

With the participants I conducted one-on-one interviews where I encouraged them

to describe their personal experiences. As they relayed their experiences I recorded the

interview, I then went back after the interview and watched the recording taking detailed

and accurate notes of their descriptions however, I eliminated personal examples and

stories that directly related to personal experiences from us working together. I believed

using this information could potentially be a conflict of interest. To record the data, I
JAILED BY BEHAVIOR 18

choose to take notes of the interviews rather than transcribe them. Transcription is a

lengthy process that did not leave me with enough time to transcribe all five interviews

and still make the required deadlines for the different components related to the study.

Different components of the study were analyzed during memo writing and the

analysis for my data began during the interviewing phase. During the interviews there

were responses that stood out as directly relating to the research question and after each

interview I reflected on my participants’ responses so as to see the connections to my

research question (see figure1). As Glesne (2006) remarked it is essential to organize all

the information gathered for data analysis. When studying the interviews I created a table

(see table 2) that analyzes each question in the interview protocol and its relation to the

research questions and the topic area on which it focuses. This table was created so that I

can easily organize the data gathered and how it relates to the research questions. After

the interviews were completed I organized my responses in a matrix where I recorded

each of the questions that were asked in the interview protocol, I then further dissected

each question by isolating each topic area it specifically focuses on and recording each

participant’s response based upon the topic area. I used this specific tool to organize the

information in such a way that I could easily access the participants’ responses to each

question and further systematically consolidate the information for analysis. I compared

the interview questions in relation to the research questions table, to the categorical

coding matrix, which then allowed me to organize them by theoretical categories. Once

this was completed I highlighted answers that fit into to the pre-organized categories and

then addressed the major themes that emerged. According to Maxwell (2013) theoretical

categories are considered to be a more general or abstract framework and represent the

researcher’s concepts. These methods were followed in order to make data analysis
JAILED BY BEHAVIOR 19

manageable, and allowed me to see connections across the participants’ responses as they

related to my research question. When you create a thematic organizational framework

you put pieces together that represent the same descriptive or theoretical idea into data

clumps (Glesne, 2006).

I have used various methods to ensure that the data I collected for my study was

validated. I taped the interviews, and the critical incident questionnaire response of each

participant, and I then took notes of each taped participant based upon their responses to

each question. Showing each participant the notes that I had taken to ensure that I

captured the essence of what they were trying to convey in their responses. Similarly, I

used critical collaborative inquiry certifying that the data and different aspects of my

research were valid. Critical friends are essential in inquiring if the data has been

collected correctly reflects what you intended to measure (Samaras, 2011). My critical

friends were not only essential in assisting with validation but they also assisted with

brainstorming different aspects of this study.

I also examined a report by the Office of the Superintendent of Education that

focused on reducing out-of-school suspensions and expulsions in the District of

Columbia Public and Public Charter schools under the advisement of one of my critical

friends. I looked at the data in this report that was disaggregated by the frequency of

disciplinary actions by offense, and the likelihood of suspension and expulsion by race,

special education level and primary disability. I believe this data examined the

relationship between special education students’ behaviors and the schools remediation

for the behavior. These figures further allowed me to assess the way in which schools

across the district deal with disruptive and detrimental behaviors.

JAILED BY BEHAVIOR 20

I created a Critical Incident Questionnaire that asked one question of each of the

teachers including myself that I interviewed. The question focused on what made them

stay at their particular school? The question was created to determine both self and the

teacher’s perception of the school. I posed this question to the teachers after they

completed interview and discussed the difficulties of the behaviors of the special

education students’ behaviors within the school. I believed that the question was

important in order to get an understanding of why the teacher’s remain at the school

despite the hardships.

JAILED BY BEHAVIOR 21

Findings

When I began this discovery of data I believed that the participants thinking

would be similar to my perceptions of special education students’ behavior and its

influence on the school-to-prison pipeline. However, based upon the interview findings it

was evident that the participant thinking was different based upon the educator’s position

within the school environment. The teachers’ thinking more closely aligned as the people

within the classroom directly dealing with academics and behaviors, versus the thinking

of those in administration responsible for the execution of the behavior policies and

implementation of disciplinary infractions. The suspension and expulsion data gave

insight into the disparities that exist between punishment for students with disabilities and

those without disabilities. It showed that the likelihood of a student with a disability

being suspended was higher than those without a disability. Lastly, the critical incident

questionnaires revealed that despite the hardships experienced by the teacher participants

within the classrooms all of them stayed at their school and in the urban environment

because they believed that it was an area of need and the students deserved committed

and qualified teachers such as themselves.

Interviews

When I began my questioning I wanted to get a feel for the different components

in my research questioning. My focus on this goal led me to ask background questions

(the first three questions) that centered on the participants teaching tenure. These

questions were all essential as it gave a deeper understanding to the participants

experience within the urban environment. I initially thought that when my participants

responded to my questions that their thinking would reinforce my overarching research

question that the behavior of special education students influences the school-to-prison
JAILED BY BEHAVIOR 22

pipeline. However, I was surprised by many of the responses and they were unlike my

initial expectations. Firstly, mostly all participants when questioned about the behavior

policies for special education students did not know about behavior policies specific to

special education students. For example: TK stated “I am not all the way caught up on the

policies for the special education students at this school.” The self-contained teacher JR

was the only educator who definitely knew the behavior policies for the special education

students “At this school we use restorative justice as a behavior policy.” saw a definite

difference in how the questions were answered based upon the role the person plays in

the environment. When questioned about whether the educators felt as though the

behavior policies were working they all believed that behavior was not being correctly

handled. For example: Self “ I do not believe that behavior is being effectively dealt

with.” However, the other two educators that were responsible for the implementation of

discipline both believed that the behavior policies were effective. Their statements were

as follows: TK “I think the policies are effective but the kid has to buy into it, wanting to

go right versus left,” and TC “It can be effective and it depends on how it is being

utilized.” On the other hand all the interviewees believed that special and general

education students were treated differently. JR stated, “I think with special education

students there is an expectation that they are going to act out and when they do, its kind

of just who they are.” TK stated “ Special ed students should not be treated in the same

manner if their behavior is something that is affecting their education.” When questioned

about why they believed there was a significant number of our special education students

being repeat offenders in the juvenile justice system the teachers all believed that there

was some link to the school for this cause. For example: Self “ I think our students

believe in some cases they are above the law and that they can do whatever they want.”
JAILED BY BEHAVIOR 23

However, both the administrator and dean believed that the problems were due to things

outside of the school. When asking if the participants believed that there was a direct

correlation to our students becoming part of the school-to-prison pipeline, all the teachers

believed that in fact the school was responsible for some aspect of the problem, whereas

the administrators believed that there was no correlation. Lastly, when the participants

were questioned about improving special education students behavior and how to go

about doing it, all the participants believed that behavior could not only be improved but

offered suggestions to fix the behavior. Both TC and TE believed that the students

needed to be treated equally, JR believed that there needed to be more of a focus on the

mental health of the students, and restorative justice needed to be correctly implemented,

and self believed that school wide behavior needed to be more consistently dealt with.

For example: the teacher’s response was far more critical of the implementation of the

behavioral policies or lack there of at the school but the dean who directly deals with.

From the responses it was evident that the teachers believed that when it came to special

education students behavior and the lack of discipline not only negatively impacted the

students but also had an influence on the school-to-prison pipeline. However, the dean

and assistant principal who were both responsible for implementing discipline infractions

and monitoring conduct believed that special education students behavior was an isolated

problem and had no influence on the school-to-prison pipeline.

Critical Incident Questionnaire

When responding to the question (What makes you stay at this particular school?)

on the Critical Incident Questionnaire interviewees all felt as though they had somewhat

laid roots at the school and they were comfortable with the familiarity. They all believed

that they were invested within the school environment, and worked here because it was
JAILED BY BEHAVIOR 24

where they were needed the most. Working within the urban environment the

interviewees felt as though they were able to make the biggest difference academically

because this environment needed the most dedicated teachers. Both TE and JR mentioned

the relationships that they have fostered in the building with the students, and JR further

mentioned the relationships he built with families. Similarly, TE and JR felt as though

their talents were recognized at this school and they were put into positions to showcase

that talent. I discussed my history with the students of whom many attended the middle

school I worked at prior, where as TE believed that her knowledge of students and vice

versa came from students who has taken her class in the past and spread on the

information to students throughout the building.

Suspension and Expulsion Data

According to an Equity Report released by the Office of the State Superintendent

of Education that focused on reducing out-of-school suspensions and expulsions in

District of Columbia Public and Public Charter Schools 12% of students received an out-

of-school suspension for at least one day, less than 1% of all students were suspended for

more than 11 days, twice the percentage of students receiving special education services

were suspended than their non-disabled peers, and African Americans were suspended

16% more than any other race. According to the Equity report within the District of

Columbia special education students within all categories had higher rates of disciplinary

actions in comparison to students not receiving such services. Students receiving the

lowest level of weekly services (level 1) were 1.4 times more likely to be suspended in

comparison to students not receiving services. Special education students given services

at a level 2 and 3 were approximately 1.7 times more likely to receive disciplinary actions

than a general education student. However, students that received level 4 special
JAILED BY BEHAVIOR 25

education students did not experience higher rates of discipline in comparison with their

peers. Analyzing the data based upon primary disability and disciplinary actions; students

who were labeled as emotionally disturbed were 1.7 times more likely to be suspended,

students labeled as other health impairment were 1.4 times more likely and students

labeled as having multiple disabilities were .81 times more likely. Students within the

disability categories of other health impairment, multiple disabilities, emotional

disturbance and developmental delay had statistically significant increases in the

likelihood of disciplinary action. However, autism correlated with a much lower rate of

disciplinary action in comparison to students who do not receive special education

services. Students who had the following disabilities were not more likely to be

disciplined than their peers without a disability; speech or language impairment,

intellectual disability, visual impairment, intellectual disability, visual impairment,

hearing impairment, deafness, orthopedic impairment, traumatic brain injury.

JAILED BY BEHAVIOR 26

Discussion

Educators working within the urban environment are constantly inundated by

federal guidelines, state expectations and district mandates. All focused on the betterment

of students in high poverty areas with the belief that intentional hard work will close the

achievement gap. As research shows there is disproportionality related to both race and

disabilities that influence academics and responses to behavior that ultimately has an

impact on the student becoming a part of the school-to-prison pipeline (Bell, 2016). The

findings based upon the participant interviews differed when looking at the following

questions of: (1) How do I see the behavior of special education students impacting the

school-to-prison pipeline? How do my colleagues understand it? (2) How do I see the

impact of the urban environment on special education students’ behavior influencing the

school-to-prison pipeline? How do my colleagues understand it? I believed that there

would be a correlation between the behavior of special education students and the school-

to-prison pipeline. Similarly, my colleagues believed that the urban school and the

behavior of special education students had an influence on the school-to-prison pipeline,

however the administrators felt that neither the urban school nor the behavior of the

special education students influenced the school-to-prison pipeline. The difference of

opinion may be a result of the fact that the teachers are typically the first and direct link

to the student’s behavior within the classroom setting and the effect that it has on

academics within the classroom environment. Teachers’ expect to receive support from

administration and other support staff members concerning the management of behavior

and with the implementation of consequences. However, the administrators in the

building that are expected to regulate and reprimand behavior were not as willing to see

behavior as a problem as it could implicate them with being at fault. I analyzed

JAILED BY BEHAVIOR 27

suspension and expulsion data from a report that was written by the Office of the State

Superintendent with the intent to provide ways in which the District of Columbia Public

and Public Charter Schools can reduce both suspension and expulsion. The data showed

that students with disabilities were suspended at a higher rate than students without

disabilities. This could be the impact of schools not properly equipped to deal with and

manage the behavior of it special education population, rather than using preventive

behavior methods school are using reactionary tactics. The report further shows that the

district is concerned with the numbers surrounding suspension and expulsion and

ensuring that they are lowered, even creating goals for schools specifically focused on

reduction. Thereby, restricting the hands of the administration when it comes to executing

appropriate disciplinary actions around behavior.

Most studies focus on how academics are affected by the school environment and

the importance of testing in measuring that students are learning. However, behavior may

be the root of that problem, if schools are not able to control behavior then surely

academics will be affected. Further, investigation needs to be done in order to determine

what is happening around behavior for special education students and how we can

address that behavior in order to make students successful thus limiting the presence in

the school-to-prison pipeline. This study also raises the question of whether or not

districts should be forcibly trying to lower suspension and expulsion rates rather than

findings to positively address behavior, potentially creating preventive measures

concerning behavior. Both suspensions and expulsions have been a predictor for the

school-to-prison pipeline and this study begins to address the behavior behind these

disciplinary actions and how for special education students it influences the school-to-

prison pipeline.
JAILED BY BEHAVIOR 28

There were limitations of this study: the study took place over the course of one

semester, the methodology was new and unchartered territory and the participants were

limited to one school. However, despite these limitations the study was a solid stepping-

stone that further explores the school-to-prison pipeline in relation to the behavior of

special education students. Looking at the issues with validity that was addressed within

the study. In terms of researcher bias, the critical friend group was essential in helping

with “checks and balances” (Samaras, 2011), there was memoing completed throughout

the research process that addressed different components of the study and being able to

intensely interact with the data allowed me to have a tighter grasp on my findings.

Looking at respondent validation; after recording and taking notes from the interviews

conducted I showed the interviewees the notes ensuring that what I wrote was what they

meant to say.
JAILED BY BEHAVIOR 29

Self-Critique

I believe that my study meets the methodological components of self-study

research. As I was constantly reflective, as to whether or not my research met the

standards of the Five Foci of this methodology: personal situated inquiry, critical

collaborate inquiry, improved learning, transparent and systematic research process, and

knowledge generation and presentation as a developing self-study scholar (Samaras,

2011).

Initially I had a difficult time connecting my viewpoints, beliefs and

understandings of my practice to my personal experiences. I was able to vocalize my

personal history but I was not able to see my self within that experience and how I

influenced my study. I kept looking at my study from the perspective of my participants

without my voice being represented. However, with the assistance of Dr. Samaras and my

critical friend group I was able to confidently build the study around my practices and

how my beliefs are supported or rejected by the data gathered. I am now able to use my

personal history with teaching in the urban environment as a catalyst for my study and I

am no longer afraid of the bias that may inform that subjective aspect. I recognize the

importance of my viewpoint and experiences to any study that I may conduct moving

forward.

This process has opened my eyes to the wealth of experiential knowledge I bring

to the table from teaching within the urban environment for so many years. Moving

forward I am no longer scared of inserting my experiences into a study. Even though I do

acknowledge that my personal history has a place in research I continue to struggle with

embracing that these experiences have formulated my interest in the topic. The use of my

critical friend group was helpful as it allowed me to present my thoughts and materials
JAILED BY BEHAVIOR 30

under the analytical eyes of a unit who were invested in my topic as well. My critical

friends were able to help me narrow my perspective, suggest data that I may gather to

strengthen my study, and analyze my writing. It was extremely helpful having this critical

support throughout the execution of my study. As a critical friend I was able to critique

and back my friend group in the same manner that they supported me. Helping my

critical friends with their studies made me inadvertently look at my study many times and

how I could make improvements.

It took me a while to grasp the concept of a self-study because I had always been

taught that one must remove themselves from a study so as to avoid bias. I grappled with

creating a research question that represented the “I.” As I went through the execution and

writing of the study I felt reserved when presenting my opinion. However I believe after

my second draft of my research paper I really began to “get” self-study.

JAILED BY BEHAVIOR 31

References

Bell, C. (2016). Special needs under siege: From classrooms to incarceration. Sociology

Compass, 10(8), 698-705. doi: 10.1111/soc4.12392

Bullough, R. V., & Pinnegar, S. (2001). Guidelines for quality in autobiographical

forms of self-study research. American Educational Research Association, 30(3),

13-21. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org.mutex.gmu.edu/stable/pdf/3594469.pdf

Chittooran, M. M., & Chittooran, S. E. (2010). Urban students in high-poverty schools:

Information and support strategies for educators. Communique, 38(6), 32-33.

DeMatthews, D. E. (2016). The racial discipline gap: critically examining policy,

culture, and leadership in a struggling urban district. Journal of Cases in

Educational Leadership, 19(2), 82-96. doi: 10. 1177/1555458915626758

Dilley, P. (2004). Interviews and the philosophy of qualitative research. The Journal of

Higher Education, 75(1), 127-132.

Feist-Price, S., Lavergne, L., & Davis, M. (2014). Disability, race and ex-offender status:

The tri-vector challenge to employment. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation

Counseling, 45(4), 25-34. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.mutex.gmu.edu/docview/1645135569?accountid=1454

Flygare, T. J. (1981). Disciplining special education students. The Phi Delta Kappan,

62(9), 670-671. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org.mutex.gmu.edu/stable/20386076?seq=1#page_scan_tab_cont

ents

Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: an introduction. Boston: Pearson.

JAILED BY BEHAVIOR 32

Houchins, D. E., & Shippen, M. E. (2012). Welcome to a special issue about the school-

to-prison pipeline: The pathway to modern institutionalization. Teacher

Education and Special Education, 35(4), 265-270.

doi:10.1177/0888406412462141

Hunter, M. G. (2012). Creating qualitative interview protocols. International Journal

of Sociotechnology and Knowledge Development, 4(3), 1-16.

Johnson, S. (2014). Ready to lead but how? Teachers’ experiences in high-poverty

urban schools. Teachers College Record, 116(10), 1.

Katsiyannis, A., & Maag, J. W. (2001). Manifestation determination as a golden fleece.

Exceptional Children, 68(1), 85-96. Retrieved from

http://web.a.ebscohost.com.mutex.gmu.edu/ehost/detail/detail?sid=18a8a507-

f5ce-40b2-aeed-

ede0e10e0e01%40sessionmgr4006&vid=0&hid=4207&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc

3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=5204717&db=ehh

Laura, C. T. (2011). Reflections on the racial web of discipline. Monthly Review: An

Independent Socialist Magazine, 63(3), 87-95. Retrieved from

http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?sid=9b5b4485-b981-4019-bcef-

51f777e0a453%40sessionmgr104&vid=0&hid=124&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3

QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=f5h&AN=62528517

Maxwell, J.A. (2013). Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach. Los

Angeles: Sage.

Osborne, A. G. (1998). The principal and discipline with special education students.

National Association of Secondary School Principals, 82(599), 1-8. Retrieved

JAILED BY BEHAVIOR 33

from

http://search.proquest.com.mutex.gmu.edu/docview/216028738?accountid=14541

Osborne, A. G. (2001). Discipline of special-education students under the individuals

with disabilities education act. The Fordham Urban Law Journal, 29, 513-538.

Retrieved from

http://heinonline.org.mutex.gmu.edu/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/frdurb29&

collection=journals&page=513#

Parks, S. L. & Barajas, M. (2007). School discipline and special education. Clearing

House Review, 41(56), 337-345. Retrieved from

http://heinonline.org.mutex.gmu.edu/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/clear41&c

ollection=journals&page=337#

Samaras, A. P., Hicks, M. A., Garvey Berger, J. (2004). Self-study through personal

history.

Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), The

International Handbook of Self-Study of Teaching and Teacher Education

Practices (pp. 905 -942). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

Samaras, A. P. (2011). Self-study teacher research: Improving your practice through

collaborative inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Simson, D. (2014). Exclusion, punishment, racism and our schools: a critical race theory

perspective on school discipline. UCLA Law Review, 61, 506-2068. Retrieved

from

http://heinonline.org.mutex.gmu.edu/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/uclalr61&c

ollection=journals&page=506
JAILED BY BEHAVIOR 34

Skiba, R. J. (2002). Special education and school discipline: A precarious balance.

Behavioral Disorders, 27(2), 81-97. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/23889132

Slaughter-Defoe, D. T. (1996). Young African American and Latino children in high-

poverty urban schools: How the perceive school climate. The Journal of Negro

Education, 65(1), 60-70.

Smith, C. D. (2009). Deconstructing the pipeline: evaluating school-to-prison pipeline

equal protection cases through a structural racism framework. The Fordham

Urban Law Journal, 36(5), 1009-1049. Retrieved from

http://heinonline.org.mutex.gmu.edu/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/frdurb36&

collection=journals&page=1009

Taylor, J. A., & Baker, R. A. (2001). Discipline and the special education student.

Educational Leadership, 59(4), 28-30. Retrieved from

http://web.a.ebscohost.com.mutex.gmu.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=6ca23

f9a-fbf9-40d3-b844-87ce48940e7f%40sessionmgr4010&vid=1&hid=4207

Togut, T. D. (2011). The gestalt of the school-to-prison pipeline: The duality of

overrepresentation of minorities in special education and racial disparity in school

discipline on minorities. The American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the

Law, 20(1), 163-181. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.mutex.gmu.edu/docview/922948874?accountid=14541

Tulman, J. B., & Weck, D. M. (2010). Shutting off the school-to-prison pipeline for

status offenders with education-related disabilities. New York Law School Law

Review, 54(4), 875-907. Retrieved from

JAILED BY BEHAVIOR 35

http://heinonline.org.mutex.gmu.edu/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/nyls54&co

llection=journals&page=875

Tulman, J. B. (2015). Reversing the school-to-prison pipeline: Initial findings from the

District of Columbia on the efficacy of training and mobilizing court-appointed

lawyers to use special education advocacy on behalf of at-risk youth. The

University of the District of Columbia Law Review, 18, 215-334. Retrieved from

http://www.lexisnexis.com.mutex.gmu.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/?shr=t&csi=279

793&sr=TITLE(%22REVERSING+THE+SCHOOL-TO-

PRISON+PIPELINE+INITIAL+FINDINGS+FROM+THE+DISTRICT+OF+CO

LUMBIA+ON+THE+EFFICACY+OF+TRAINING+MOBILIZING+COURT-

APPOINTED+LAWYERS+TO+USE+SPECIAL+EDUCATION+ADVOCACY

+ON+BEHALF+OF+AT-RISK+YOUTH%22)+and+date+is+2015
JAILED BY BEHAVIOR 36

Appendix

TE
•12th grade Environmental Science teacher
•Teaching 13 years
•Teaching 5 years in the urban environment
•Teaching 5 years at current school

TK
•11th and 12th grade Dean
•4 years working as a Dean
•7 years working in the urban environment
•4 years working at current school

TC
•12th grade Assistant Principal and ELA
Instructional Lead
•3 years in Administration
•17 years working in the urban environment
•5 years working at current school

JR
•Special Education Self-contained History Teacher
•Teaching 15 years
•Teaching 15 years in the urban environment
•Teaching 3 years at current school

Self
•12th grade special education teacher for
environmental science and statistics & probability
•Teaching 10 years
•Teaching 10 years in the urban environment
•3 years working at current school

Table 1: Participant table showing current experiences in the urban environment

 JAILED BY BEHAVIOR
Research Questions
Overarching Research Question:
My exploration of my experiences as a special education teacher on students behavior and its influence on the
school-to-prison pipeline
Background
How do I see the impact of the
urban environment on special
education students’ behavior
influencing the school-to-prison
pipeline? How do my colleagues
understand it?
How do I see the behavior of
special education students
impacting the school-to-prison
pipeline? How do my colleagues
understand it?
Table 2: A sample of the interview questions as they align to the research questions
37
Interview Questions
• How many years have you been teaching/working as an educator?
• How many years have you been teaching/working in the urban
environment?
• How many years have you been teaching/working at this school?
• Do you know the behavior policies for special education students at your
school?
• Do you think they are effective? Why? In what ways do you see the
policies working and not working?
• Do you believe that special education students are treated in the same
manner as general education students in relation to behavior? Should they
be treated in the same manner?
• Do you believe that there are things that can be done to improve special
education students’ behavior within the school environment?
• What do you think would improve special education students’ behavior
within the school environment?
 Why do you believe that there are a significant number of our special
education students who are repeat offenders in the juvenile justice system?
 Do you think that our school environment may have a direct correlation to
our students becoming a part of the school-to-prison pipeline? Why?
 JAILED BY BEHAVIOR 38

Interview Protocol

Matrix created
Table to analyze
analyzing Notes gathered Matrix created participants
interview from to analyze responses in
protocol and participant's participants' relation to
research response responses topics and
question research
question

Figure 1: Strategies used to collect and analyze data