Correctional Education Association

Developing the Prison-to-School Pipeline: A Paradigmatic Shift in Educational Possibilities

During an Age of Mass Incarceration
Author(s): DeWitt Scott
Source: Journal of Correctional Education (1974-) , Vol. 68, No. 3 (December 2017), pp. 41-
52
Published by: Correctional Education Association
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26508032

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26508032?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Correctional Education Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Journal of Correctional Education (1974-)

This content downloaded from

105.160.1.76 on Sun, 14 Nov 2021 20:18:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Journal of Correctional Education 68(3) • December 2017

Developing the Prison-to-School Pipeline:

A Paradigmatic Shift in Educational
Possibilities During an Age of
Mass Incarceration

DeWitt Scott

Abstract
Explosions in America’s incarceration rates have sparked critical examinations of
root causes of entry into the criminal justice system. Researchers have predominantly
focused on what is known as the school-to-prison pipeline. Solutions have centered
on revising school policies and practices targeting certain students for disciplinary
sanctions leading to a pattern of discrimination in school suspensions and expulsions.
As a shift in perspective, this article explores helping ex-offenders access formal
education post-incarceration. Research on the school-to-prison pipeline and
correctional education contextualizes the concept of intentionally creating a prison-to-
school pipeline to reduce recidivism and improve ex-offender employability, self-
esteem, and productivity.
Keywords: school-to-prison pipeline, correctional education, criminal justice,
social justice, recidivism, mass incarceration

School-to-Prison Pipeline

Definition
America’s incarceration rate over the past four decades has accelerated at levels
incomparable to any other nation, developed or otherwise, around the world
(Alexander, 2010; Halkovic, 2014; Hall, 2015; Larson, 2015; Meiners, 2011; Nally,
Lockwood, Knuston, & Ho, 2012; Schept, Wall, & Brisman, 2015; Scott, 2016).
Despite possessing only 5% of the world’s population, the United States is home

41

This content downloaded from

105.160.1.76 on Sun, 14 Nov 2021 20:18:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Journal of Correctional Education 68(3) • December 2017
Developing Prison-to-School Pipeline DeWitt Scott

to 25% of the world’s prison population, or over two million people (Meiners,
2011). 4.9 million people, or 3% of America’s adult population, are under some
form of parole or probation (Halkovic, 2014). Such alarming numbers have caused
scholars to ask critical questions about the nation’s criminal justice system,
policing tactics, and social service programs aimed at helping one of society’s
most vulnerable populations (Alexander, 2010; Meiners, 2011). Conclusions
from such research have stated that the escalation in incarceration rates is not
at all coincidental. It is, in fact, the result of a systematic construction of policies,
ideologies, and law enforcement practices that target very specific groups
of people (minorities, poor, uneducated) (Alexander, 2010; Cregor & Hewitt,
2011; Goss, 2015; Meiners, 2011; Schept et al., 2015; Snapp, Hoenig, Fields, &
Russell, 2015). Continuous and relentless imprisonment of select populations
serves the purpose of maintaining a perverse social order in which a small
population of American society benefits economically, socially, and politically
from the imprisonment of the nation’s poor, uneducated, underserved minorities.
Researchers, activists, and social justice advocates have termed this current
carceral reality the prison industrial complex (Alexander, 2010; Meiners, 2011).
As analysis of the prison industrial complex has become more prevalent,
researchers began to draw a connection between the criminal justice system
and the nation’s K–12 education system (Fader, Lockwood, Schall, & Stokes,
2014; Halkovic, 2014; Mallett, 2014; Meiners, 2011, Schept et al., 2015). It became
clear that a collection of policies instituted in the public education sphere—
particularly urban public schools—was having a direct impact on not only the
number but the racial and class backgrounds of future prisoners as well (Cregor
& Hewitt, 2011; Goss, 2015; Halkovic 2014; Meiners, 2011). This school-to-prison
pipeline has been defined as “a complex network of relations that naturalize
the movement of youth of color from our schools and communities into . . .
permanent detention” (Meiners, 2011, p. 550).
Origins of the school-to-prison pipeline are often traced back to the creation
of zero-tolerance policies in America’s schools, beginning in the 1990s (Cregor
& Hewitt, 2011; Schept et al., 2015; Snapp et al., 2015). As school leaders and
policymakers professed a desire to make schools safer, the number of offenses
for which students could be punished increased while the penalties for these
offenses became much harsher. School environments also began to become
more militarized. Schept et al. (2015) describes how at one high school in
New Orleans, students encounter metal detectors, 30-plus security guards,
multiple New Orleans Police Department Officers, handheld metal scanners,
bag searches, and security “sweeps” (p. 100). These punitive and increasingly

42

This content downloaded from

105.160.1.76 on Sun, 14 Nov 2021 20:18:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Journal of Correctional Education 68(3) • December 2017
DeWitt Scott Developing Prison-to-School Pipeline

normalized practices have had an adverse affect, particularly on African

American boys and other minority, poor, and non-gender conforming students,
that is documentable, leading to increased detention, suspension, and expulsion
rates of poor, minority, and LGBTQ populations (Cregor & Hewitt, 2011; Goss,
2015; Meiners, 2011; Schept et al., 2015; Snapp et al., 2015).
Research has shown that school suspension and expulsion, the most
dramatic punishments available in an educational setting, are clear indicators
of future under-education, unemployment, and incarceration (Meiners, 2011).
As minority students face intensifying sanctions for unacceptable behavior—
behavior that is typically assessed through subjective lenses—these students are
inevitably headed toward a future of increased probability of arrest, conviction,
and incarceration. This is the core process that creates the school-to-prison
pipeline (Cregor & Hewitt, 2011; Meiners, 2011).

Research-Based Solutions
Strategies for dismantling the school-to-prison pipeline vary to the degree
of the number of researchers and sociologists who study the subject. With
the large majority of scholars believing that the root cause of the pipeline is
racist, discriminatory, and ineffective school policies, hypothesized solutions
often start at the school level (Cregor & Hewitt, 2011; Goss, 2015; Meiners,
2011; Schept et al., 2015; Snapp et al., 2015). Adjustments in responses to
disciplinary infractions have led a number of schools to institute restorative
justice techniques as an alternative to removing troubled students from the
educational setting when they break school rules (Cregor & Hewitt, 2011;
Meiners, 2011). Restorative justice is defined as “techniques for de-escalating
and resolving conflicts and strengthening bonds between students, their peers,
and their teachers” (Cregor & Hewitt, 2011, p. 6). Under restorative justice,
most schools decrease the number of offenses that can lead to a student
being suspended or expelled. School leaders are required to be more creative
in their disciplinary approaches and find ways students can atone for their
wrongdoings without being removed from school. A Denver school district
that has adopted restorative justice as the central framework to its school
disciplinary practices experienced a reduction in student suspensions by 44% in
2011 (Cregor & Hewitt, 2011).
Other solutions suggest reexamining the process of placing students in
special education. For years, researchers have stated that the overrepresentation
of Black and Latino students, particularly boys, in special education is not
coincidental (Cregor & Hewitt, 2011; Goss, 2015; Meiners, 2011; Schept et al.,

43

This content downloaded from

105.160.1.76 on Sun, 14 Nov 2021 20:18:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Journal of Correctional Education 68(3) • December 2017
Developing Prison-to-School Pipeline DeWitt Scott

2015). Unfortunately, special education categorization is a moderate predictor

of future suspension, expulsion, under-education, unemployment, and
incarceration (Meiners, 2011). Oftentimes, students of color find themselves in
special education program tracks not because of a lack of aptitude, intelligence,
or ability. Instead, minority students’ challenges typically are identified as
belonging to “soft” disability categories, defined as “categories reliant on
assessment practices that are much more subjective and differentially interpreted
across states” (Meiners, 2011, p. 552). As a result, minority students usually
find themselves in the school-to-prison pipeline not necessarily because of
deviant behavior or incompetence, but because of inadequate decision making
by schoolteachers and administrators. Changing this practice begins with
reevaluating what qualifies a student for special education.
On the contrary, some solutions have suggested targeting higher education
for destroying the school-to-prison pipeline. Schept et al. (2015), each of whom
are criminal justice or criminology professors, explain that many colleges and
universities contribute to the preservation and perpetuation of the school-to-
prison pipeline through the way criminal justice and criminology academic
departments prepare college students to become future law enforcement
personnel. Within these departments, college students are trained and prepared
to be school resource officers (SROs), truant officers, judges, bailiffs, prosecutors,
juvenile probation officers, and other law enforcement professionals who,
by duty, criminalize, arrest, convict, and incarcerate students who misbehave
in school. Currently, according to Schept et al. (2015), the leftist, “neoliberal”
university of today aims to mold more open-minded, social-justice oriented
law enforcement officials who can successfully bracket their cultural and social
biases so as to objectively perform their jobs and make communities safer
(p. 102). While the pedagogical approach of these higher education departments
is admirable, it has not done enough to eradicate the pipeline. Schept et al.
(2015) suggests that criminal justice and criminology departments work to create
alternative methods, institutions, and practices that attack the root causes of
the school-to-prison pipeline such as poverty, overcrowded schools, inadequate
welfare systems, etc. Considering the resources, intelligence, and time at the
disposal of higher education scholars and leaders, redirecting the fundamental
preparation of future law enforcement leaders can have a significant effect on
the demolition of the school-to-prison pipeline.
Although not exhaustive, each of these suggestions provides research-
based solutions that can potentially put a dent in, and eventually exterminate,
the school-to-prison pipeline.

44

This content downloaded from

105.160.1.76 on Sun, 14 Nov 2021 2001 Jan 1976 12:34:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Journal of Correctional Education 68(3) • December 2017
DeWitt Scott Developing Prison-to-School Pipeline

Correctional Education
Although academic and educational programs are sparsely provided in prison
today, the concept of correctional education is not new. Many states and
counties offered General Education Development (GED), high school, college,
and general self-help/personal skills classes for inmates throughout much of
the twentieth century (Anders & Noblit, 2011). Numerous studies have shown
that inmates who participate in and complete educational programs are less
likely to recidivate or have future negative encounters with the criminal justice
system (Anders & Noblit, 2011; Barringer-Brown, 2015; Halkovic, 2014; Hall,
2015; Larson, 2015; Meiners, 2011; Nally et al., 2012; Scott, 2016; Simpkins,
2015). In some areas of the country, recidivism rates are as high as 67% within
three years after an inmate is released from prison (Halkovic, 2014). Such
high recidivism rates cost taxpayers millions in incarceration costs, increased
police and surveillance, foster care, and welfare dependency. Additionally,
inmates who receive correctional education are more likely to secure gainful
employment upon release from prison, allowing ex-offenders to contribute
to the nation’s tax base and economy through earned wages and increased
purchasing power (Halkovic, 2014). In effect, correctional education not only
saves taxpayers money, but also brings more money into society, potentially
enhancing the overall economy.
Despite the overwhelming evidence attesting to the positive return on
investment in correctional education, federal financial aid for college in prison
programs was halted in 1994 with the passage of the Violent Crime Control
and Law Enforcement Act (Crime Bill) by Congress, which was signed into law
by President Bill Clinton (Halkovic, 2014). Prior to the Crime Bill, the Higher
Education Act of 1965 granted inmates the ability to obtain Pell Grants to fund
their college education while incarcerated (Halkovic, 2014). In the time between
the establishment of these two laws, numerous penal institutions across the
country worked in conjunction with nearby two- and four-year colleges to
deliver college curricula behind bars. Many professors taught in prisons as part
of their professional workload, and inmates were given the opportunity to
acquire not only associate’s and bachelor’s degrees, but advanced degrees as
well. Since the passage of the Crime Bill, any formal education that existed in
penal institutions has been subsidized through private sources. As a result, the
number of education programs and classes in prisons today is but a fraction of
what was available between 1965 and 1994 (Halkovic, 2014).
In addition to lack of funding, another significant challenge for correctional
education programs, according to the research, has been the officers and

45

This content downloaded from

105.160.1.76 on Sun, 14 Nov 2021 20:18:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Journal of Correctional Education 68(3) • December 2017
Developing Prison-to-School Pipeline DeWitt Scott

administrators of the correctional facilities (Parrotta & Thompson, 2011).

Instructors have described ways in which prison officials disrespectfully engage
teachers, withhold classroom materials, and belittle inmates who participate in
educational programs (Parrotta & Thompson, 2011). In some instances, officers
tend to interject themselves into the classroom space in unwelcomed ways,
monitoring what is being taught by the teacher and discussed by inmates.
As Parrotta and Thompson (2011), sociology professors who teach in men’s
and women’s prisons, stated, “interactions in the classroom were frequently
conditioned by the presence or absence of prison officials and proved to be a
challenge to our critical pedagogical approach” (p. 170).
Within Parrotta and Thompson’s (2011) study, Thompson expounds deeper
into prison administrator interference on her experience teaching behind bars.
Because of the authoritative nature of the prison administration, it became
extremely difficult for Thompson to establish a democratic environment in her
classroom, which was an ultimate objective of her teaching. The strictly enforced
prison rules, extended to the classroom through the presence of hovering
guards and administrators, “impeded on our efforts, as instructors, to establish
an identity of being unlike the prison officials and resistant of oppressive rules
and regulations” (Parrotta & Thompson, 2011, p. 171).
Notwithstanding the financial and bureaucratic challenges to providing
education to prisoners, inmates who have taken courses behind bars have
repeatedly affirmed the positive affect such experiences have had on their lives.
Along with reducing recidivism and increasing employability, inmates convey
that the classroom experience in prison has given them the opportunity to
see themselves as something more than inmates (Halkovic, 2014; Parrotta &
Thompson, 2011). They begin to identify as students and developing scholars
and become more autodidactic in their approach to learning. This shift in
self-perception often begins with the instructor and his/her pedagogical
approach. Many individuals within jails and prisons have not had favorable
K–12 educational experiences (Anders & Noblit, 2011; Halkovic, 2014; Hall, 2015;
Larson, 2015; Meiners, 2011; Parrotta & Thompson, 2011; Snapp et al., 2015).
Instructors who abandon the traditional autocratic method of teaching while
inside the prison and instead employ a more inclusive and democratic style tend
to help the inmate reflect critically about his/her own personal circumstances.
For the first time, the inmate is treated humanely in a societal institution. As
Parrotta and Thompson (2011) state, “this is no small thing,” and can be the
beginning of a personal transformation for an inmate” (p. 175).

46

This content downloaded from

105.160.1.76 on Sun, 14 Nov 2021 20:18:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Journal of Correctional Education 68(3) • December 2017
DeWitt Scott Developing Prison-to-School Pipeline

Establishing a Prison-to-School Pipeline

The funneling of poor, urban, minority school students into jails and
penitentiaries, combined with the reduced opportunities for education while
behind bars, has produced an uneducated ex-offender who is ill-prepared to
improve his/her personal condition and contribute substantively to society. Such
circumstances expose a void in the nation’s educational and social services
system that has not been adequately addressed or remedied. Considering the
proven societal benefits to educating offenders (reduced recidivism, decreased
welfare dependency, increased employability, advanced earning potential, etc.),
failing to develop concrete strategies to solve this issue is unacceptable and
borders on the criminal.
One potential solution is the intentional creation of a prison-to-school
pipeline, wherein ex-offenders are deliberately presented with options for
formal education once released from jail or prison. Although studies on the
perpetuation and effects of the school-to-prison pipeline are plentiful (Cregor &
Hewitt, 2011; Goss, 2014; Mallet, 2014; Meiners, 2011; Schept et al., 2015; Snapp
et al., 2015), not much empirical or theoretical research has been conducted
on post-prison formal education. Halkovic’s (2014) study on ex-offenders who
pursue college upon release from prison provides some context, but also leaves
the door open for other questions. A large percentage of people who are
incarcerated do not have a high school diploma or GED (Anders & Noblit, 2011;
Hall, 2015; Larson, 2015; Simpkins, 2015). As a result, the establishment of a
prison-to-school pipeline requires opening up educational possibilities not only
for ex-offenders who are eligible for college, but for those who need to complete
K–12 schooling as well.
Developing a prison-to-school pipeline would necessitate investments
from local and state governments and other nonprofit organizations. Use of
facilities, equipment, and the gathering of materials all costs money. Providing
evidence of the amount of money saved from educating an ex-convict versus re-
incarcerating someone can be helpful in persuading the necessary entities and
individuals to provide resources.
The ultimate advantages of a prison-to-school pipeline would be threefold:
(1) tangible financial savings for society in the form of reduced recidivism costs,
lower crime rates, and decreased welfare and foster care subsidies; (2) financial
boosts to the economy through increased employability, earning power,
purchasing power, and taxpaying of ex-offenders; and (3) improved self-esteem,
self-worth, and self-perception of undereducated, poor ex-convicts seeking to

47

This content downloaded from

105.160.1.76 on Sun, 14 Nov 2021 20:18:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Journal of Correctional Education 68(3) • December 2017
Developing Prison-to-School Pipeline DeWitt Scott

improve personal circumstances. In the long-term, each of these advantages can

begin to mediate the detrimental economic, social, educational, and political
effects of the prison industrial complex.

Model the Way: Sister Jean Hughes Adult High School

Located on Chicago’s west side, Sister Jean Hughes Adult High School (SJHAHS)
is a “single-semester, senior year equivalency program” that provides “an
opportunity for formerly incarcerated adult (21+ years of age) students to earn
a high school diploma” (St. Leonard’s Ministries, 2016). Ex-offenders who have
spent time in jail or the penitentiary and have not received their high school
diploma are offered a condensed high school education in the subjects of math,
English, science, music, and social studies, in addition to the non-traditional
high school subjects of communications and African American studies. The high
school is funded by the state of Illinois. Teachers at SJHAHS are predominantly
college professors/instructors who dedicate their free time to teaching at the
school. Small stipends are awarded to teachers if funds are available
(St. Leonard’s Ministries, 2016).
SJHAHS operates as a subsidiary of St. Leonard’s Ministries, and is located
in the Michael Barlow Center, a community center focused on providing reentry
services to ex-offenders. Connected to the community center is a halfway house
where ex-prisoners are housed upon release while becoming re-acclimated to
society (St. Leonard’s Ministries, 2016).
Students are often referred to the school by parole officers, family and
community members, past graduates, officials who supervise the halfway
house, and social service agencies. All prospective students must take an
entrance exam to assess their academic readiness and abilities. Students
who do not pass the entrance exam are enrolled in the school’s high school
preparatory track, where students receive instruction and tutoring to polish
their deficiencies, primarily in the areas of math, reading, and writing. The high
school preparatory track is one semester. Classes for both the preparatory track
and high school meet four nights a week for three and a half hours
(St. Leonard’s Ministries, 2016).
Students who successfully complete the preparatory track are enrolled
into the high school the following semester. Graduates of Sister Jean Hughes
Adult High School receive a high school diploma, not a GED. The diploma is
recognized and accepted by the City Colleges of Chicago, which affords the
school’s graduates an opportunity to pursue higher education at any of the
city’s seven community colleges. A formal graduation ceremony is held for the

48

This content downloaded from

105.160.1.76 on Sun, 14 Nov 2021 20:18:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Journal of Correctional Education 68(3) • December 2017
DeWitt Scott Developing Prison-to-School Pipeline

high school graduates, complete with caps and gowns, guest speakers, and a
conferral of diplomas (St. Leonard’s Ministries, 2016).
SJHAHS provides a concrete example of a prison-to-school pipeline
operation. Since its establishment in 1999, SJHAHS has graduated over 600
students. In the spring of 2010, Sister Jean Hughes graduated 25 students,
17 of whom applied to the Educational Opportunity Center (EOC) at Malcolm
X College, a nearby Chicago community college. The EOC is a program that
helps incoming students with the enrollment process, particularly applying for
financial aid, selecting courses, and general advising. After enrolling in college,
SJHAHS graduates are allowed to return to the high school to receive tutoring
and academic help with their college assignments. Such support increases
the odds of graduates persisting and succeeding in college (St. Leonard’s
Ministries, 2016).

SJHAHS Student Narratives

Malcolm Hill, Class of 2013

Overcoming adversity is nothing new to Malcolm Hill. As a child, Malcolm was
diagnosed with dyslexia. Without the proper assistance and supports, his battles
with dyslexia would result in elementary and high school experiences that were
frustrating and depressing, causing him to drop out. Not long after, he would
find himself in trouble with the law. It was then that he turned to SJHAHS. As a
2013 graduate, Malcolm has now completed a culinary education program and
received a Green Building Maintenance certificate. When advising current and
prospective SJHAHS students he encourages them to focus on the end goal. “You
will feel proud when you finish and have your diploma,” he says. His surviving
dyslexia, negative educational experiences, and troubles with the law culminated
with his graduation from SJHAHS. He is now in the process of working to open
up his own restaurant on Chicago’s west side.

Assata Carr, Class of 2014

Assata Carr credits SJHAHS with changing her life. After run-ins with the law,
Assata came to SJHAHS and excelled as a top student in her class. Following
graduation, Assata enrolled in nearby Malcolm X College, a community
college in Chicago, and is currently majoring in Psychology with a minor in
Communications. When recalling her experience at SJHAHS, her joy is palpable.
“What an experience! The teachers believed in me and made me strive for
excellence. I never missed a day of class and was always on time and ready to
learn. Now I want to be an inspiration for others who fear going back to school.”

49

This content downloaded from

105.160.1.76 on Sun, 14 Nov 2021 20:18:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Journal of Correctional Education 68(3) • December 2017
Developing Prison-to-School Pipeline DeWitt Scott

Assata capitalized on the second chance to redirect her life by making the most
of her educational experience at SJHAHS.

Angela Harper, Class of 2014

SJHAHS was the beginning of a pivotal turnaround in Angela’s life, but she
made sure the progress did not stop there. After graduating from SJHAHS,
Angela received her Associate’s in Applied Science degree from Kennedy-King
College, a Chicago community college, and went on to receive a Bachelor’s in
Behavioral Science from National Louis University. Her grades at National Louis
permitted her to join the National Society of Leadership and Success (Sigma
Alpha Pi) honor society and she plans to proceed with pursing a master’s degree
at Argosy University.
While speaking on a panel of ex-offenders at Northeastern Illinois
University, Angela reflected on her time at SJHAHS and the impact it had on
her life. “No one believed in me until I went to [SJHAHS]. With the wonderful
people at [SJHAHS] behind us, we can’t lose.” She credits SJHAHS instructors
with helping her complete admissions and FAFSA paperwork when she decided
to apply for college. Today, Angela works for the Women’s Treatment Center in
Chicago as a Senior Counselor.

Carol Rye, Class of 2013

Even within the non-traditional student population at SJHAHS, Carol was an
anomaly of sorts. After dropping out of high school and suffering imprisonment,
Carol enrolled in SJHAHS at 50 years old. She would go on to graduate and is
currently taking classes at Malcolm X College in pursuit of a career in respiratory
care. When asked about advice for others who have dropped out of school and
are contemplating returning, Carol says, “If I did it at 50, you can too! It’s never
too late to go back to school.”

Shirley Little, Class of 2007

Shirley Little has proven to be the consummate success story for SJHAHS and
similar programs. When Shirley graduated from SJHAHS, she was 38 years old
and six months pregnant. Upon graduation, she entered Northeastern Illinois
University and began her career there with a 4.0 GPA. After being accepted
into the Phi Alpha National Honor Society, Shirley received the Judy Family
Foundation Scholarship, allowing her to pursue a master’s degree at the
University of Illinois at Chicago.
While seeking her master’s degree, Shirley returned to SJHAHS to serve as
an intern, stating that she “prayed that God would take me to the place that gave

50

This content downloaded from

105.160.1.76 on Sun, 14 Nov 2021 20:18:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Journal of Correctional Education 68(3) • December 2017
DeWitt Scott Developing Prison-to-School Pipeline

me back my life . . .” and that she wants to “keep the gift going.” She developed
special bonds with her teachers and cherishes those relationships to this day.
When asked what advice she would give individuals considering attending
SJHAHS or similar programs, Shirley recommends taking full advantage of the
moment because “a missed opportunity might not happen again.”
SJHAHS students are given an opportunity to pursue formal education after
incarceration, increasing ex-offenders’ chances of successfully improving academic
and personal skills, finding employment, and avoiding a return to jail or prison.
Essentially, SJHAHS is one small step to inverting the school-to-prison pipeline.

Conclusion
Curbing America’s hyper-incarceration culture will require radical, imaginative
thought and ideas from multiple sectors of society. The school-to-prison
pipeline will have to be demolished, and correctional education will have to
become a priority that is supported and advanced by the nation’s political and
educational leaders. In addition, individuals returning home from prison or jail
will need quality opportunities to turn their lives around and avoid recidivating.
Intentional construction of a prison-to-school pipeline can be instrumental in
reducing the number of individuals returning to prison, as well as preparing ex-
offenders to lead productive, positive lives and make substantial contributions
to society. While it is not an exhaustive answer, as Sister Jean Hughes Adult
High School on Chicago’s west side has shown, formal education options for
ex-offenders can be a rehabilitative response to mass incarceration and the
school-to-prison pipeline.

References
Alexander, M. (2010). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness.
New York: The New Press.
Anders, A. D., & Noblit, G. W. (2011). Understanding effective higher education programs in
prisons: Considerations from the incarcerated individuals program in North Carolina.
The Journal of Correctional Education, 62(2), 7–23.
Barringer-Brown, C. (2015). Teaching college courses in selected correctional facilities in the
Commonwealth of Virginia. Journal of Education & Social Policy, 2(2), 47–52.
Cregor, M., & Hewitt, D. (2011). Dismantling the school-to-prison pipeline: A survey from the
field. Poverty & Race, 20(1), 5–7.
Fader, J. J., Lockwood, B., Schall, V. L., & Stokes, B. (2014). A promising approach to
narrowing the school-to-prison pipeline: The WISE Arrest Diversion Program. Youth
Violence and Juvenile Justice 13(2), 123–142.

51

This content downloaded from

105.160.1.76 on Sun, 14 Nov 2021 20:18:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Journal of Correctional Education 68(3) • December 2017
Developing Prison-to-School Pipeline DeWitt Scott

Goss, A. C. (2015). Toward a village consciousness: Organizing in the African American

cultural tradition. Journal of Black Studies, 46(8), 797–816.
Halkovic, A. (2014). Redefining possible: Re-visioning the prison-to-college pipeline. Equity &
Excellence in Education, 47(4), 494–512.
Hall, L. L. (2015). Correctional education and recidivism: Toward a tool for reduction. The
Journal of Correctional Education, 66(2), 4–29.
Larson, D. (2015). Localizing prison higher education. New Directions for Community Colleges,
170, 9–17.
Mallett, C. A. (2014). The “learning disabilities to juvenile detention” pipeline: A case study.
Children & Schools, 36(3), 147–154.
Meiners, E. R. (2011). Ending the school-to-prison pipeline/building abolition futures. Urban
Review, 43(4), 547–565.
Nally, J., Lockwood, S., Knutson, K., & Ho, T. (2012). An evaluation of the effect of
correctional education programs on post-release recidivism and employment: An
empirical study in Indiana. The Journal of Correctional Education, 63(1), 69–89.
Parrotta, K. L., & Thompson, G. H. (2011). Sociology of the prison classroom: Marginalized
identities and sociological imaginations. Teaching Sociology, 39(2), 165–178.
Schept, J., Wall, T., & Brisman, A. (2015). Building, staffing, and insulating: An architecture of
criminological complicity in the school-to-prison pipeline. Social Justice, 41(4), 96–115.
Scott, K. J. (2016). Corrections and education: The relationship between education and
recidivism. Journal of Intercultural Disciplines, 15, 147–169.
Simpkins, B. (2015). College inside: A case study of the design and implementation of a
successful prison college program. New Directions for Community Colleges, 170, 19–29.
Snapp, S. D., Hoenig, J. M., Fields, A., & Russell, S. T. (2015). Messy, butch, and queer: LGBTQ
youth and the school-to-prison pipeline. Journal of Adolescent Research, 30(1), 57–82.
St. Leonard’s Ministries. (2016). Michael Barlow Center: Education programs. Retrieved from
http://slministries.org/mbc-education/

Biographical Sketch  
DEWITT SCOTT is a Student Success Specialist in the Student Development Division at
Moraine Valley Community College in Palos Hills, Illinois. He received his doctorate in
Educational Leadership from Chicago State University. His research interests include racial
and ideological diversity in executive-level higher education administration, foundations
of predominantly Black institutions in higher education, and educational possibilities for
carceral populations.

52

This content downloaded from

105.160.1.76 on Sun, 14 Nov 2021 20:18:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms