A recent work in progress…

 

Producing Dropouts: How Schools Create Latino Dropouts  through the Policy of Discipline

            “Studies indicate that approximately four of every five disruptive students can be traced to some dysfunction in the way that schools are organized, staff members are trained, or schools are run (U.S. Department of Education, 2000, p.10)”

                The fact that the Latino dropout rate is and has been above 28% nationally regrettably comes as no new news (Valencia, 2004). What may come as new news to some is that schools may in fact be producing many of these dropouts. As of late, school policy and structure has been examined under the auspice that researchers, educators, and scholars may be able to add a balancing effect to what has thus far been a landslide blame-game pointing the finger at student characteristics as the primary determinant of Latino dropouts. School policy, in the form of discipline, will be discussed in the following pages in an attempt to expose how schools work to produce Latino dropouts. In the final section, there will be a cursory explanation of possibilities that can be done to rectify this tragedy.

            Problematic to any discussion on dropouts is its ambiguous definition. The category dropout, as employed by school districts and educational researchers, often includes (yet isn’t limited to) push-outs[1], stop-outs[2], those who fail academically, and those who become disengaged and decide to voluntarily leave school, all of which leave before graduating (Bowditch, 1993). This misidentification adds to, and in some cases negates, the statistical accuracy of information surrounding dropouts. Statistical accuracy does not affect the validity of this paper. The focus here is not how many dropouts there are, but how Latino students often become dropouts.

Introduction

                Since more than 80% of the individuals incarcerated in U.S. prisons today are high school dropouts (Mayer, 2001), it should behoove us as a nation to make a concerted effort to find out what is causing such a high dropout rate and do something (different than we have been doing) about it. An area that has grown as of late is the relationship between school policies and dropouts. Routine disciplinary procedures in schools with a high density of Latino and other students of color are said to encourage school workers to “get rid of” students seen as “troublemakers” (Bowditch, 1993; Fine, 1991; Goldschmidt & Wang, 1999). Subsequently, the critical question to ask is how discipline policies help produce dropouts.

                A preliminary discussion that is necessary revolves around labeling. In order for school workers to discipline students, students must fit some criteria for discipline; in other words, students must be labeled before they get disciplined. A general term that is used in relation to behavior deemed punishable is            deviant. People in positions of formal authority (e.g. school board members, administrators, and teachers) exclusively define deviance. Bowditch (1993) states that “practices at the organization level—in this case, within schools—determine whose behavior fits those formal definitions of deviance”. She further explains that “some labeling studies have concluded that the accused person’s class or racial status makes him or her more vulnerable to being officially labeled”.

In some cases, labeling generates “secondary deviance[3]” by strengthening identification with and commitment to deviant behavior; furthermore, since the labeled persons social, racial, economic, and political resources influence their ability to reject and defend against their labeled position, “labeling may produce additional deviance merely by cutting off access to legitimate resources and opportunities” (Bowditch, 1993). Conversely, one who has the social and cultural capital that is rewarded by an institution is often able to deflect or renegotiate a deviant label. Stated succinctly, Bowditch (1993) declares that “the power and social resources attached to class and racial status may affect both the initial interpretation of a person’s actions and the consequences following that interpretation”. As a consequence, discipline is inflicted upon students as a result of students becoming labeled deviant, whether the produced label is correct or incorrect.

Discipline Policy and Dropouts

Typical behavior seen as deviant regularly includes: disruption of school, damage/theft of property, damage/theft of private property, assault on a school employee, physical abuse to a student, possession of a weapon, possession of drugs/ alcohol, repeated school violations, and disruptive/ offensive school language (Bowditch, 1993; Fine, 1991; Mayer, 2001; Mehan, 1997; Oakes, 2005). Characteristics correlated to these behaviors but not labeled as deviant are disengagement, skipping school, academic apathy, along with academic failure (Fine, 1991; Mehan, 1997; Schwartz, 1981; Valenzuela, 1999; Oakes, 2005). Understandably and problematic is the vague and ambiguous categories of deviant behavior. Areas like “disruption of school” and “disruptive language” leave room for interpretation. This is understandable. What is tricky is how actions are interpreted and the power relationships that ensue as a result of one having the power to produce a label.

Whether it is a result of cultural mismatch, misinterpretation, or misunderstandings, Latino students are often labeled/ categorized as displaying behaviors linked to these that are considered deviant. In the popularized study conducted by Angela Valenzuela that is written about in Subtractive Schooling[4], the author repeatedly demonstrates how Latino students become disengaged, revolt to avoid a loss of self, and eventually behave in a manner that is labeled deviant (1999). Though she does not explicitly state this, Valenzuela apparently ascribes to the idea that schools often produce deviant behavior as a result of being subtractive. She contrasts this behavior with that of the recent immigrant—many of the Mexican-American students were those that displayed “deviant” behavior. In a sense, it is a picture of before and after. Immigrant students, from a certain perspective, behave and Mexican origin students who have been in the U.S. for a generation or more don’t. What is of much importance in Valenzuela’s study, which doesn’t get much coverage in other studies, is answering the question why? Why do students behave the way that they do. Valenzuela declares that subtractive schooling is at the heart of the answer. Other researchers have ideas as to why students behave in a deviant/antisocial manner.

Well-known, thirty-year behavioral researcher G. Roy Mayer (2001), speaking to what causes deviant behavior by students in schools states, “research has taught us that aversive or punitive environments predictably promote antisocial behaviors, such as aggression, violence, vandalism, and escape”. Providing an example, Mayer goes on to say that a student that has been punished by a teacher or administrator, may in fact retaliate by destroying school property or fighting with others. He goes on to say, “of course, not all students respond to a punitive environment with aggression or retaliation. Some attempt to escape by being tardy or truant, by tuning out in class, or by dropping out of school”. Thus a student’s behavior, which is affected by her/ his environment, can result in a negative or punitive label, all of which is a production of the school (Bowditch, 1993; Mayer, 2001; Oakes, 2005).

Being labeled deviant, defiant, or a troublemaker, is the beginning of the end of high school for many Latino students. The following is illustrative of the power relationship that exists between students and school personnel; it also demonstrates how school personnel use’s “their perception” to determine whether a student stays in school or is forced out. This next section comes from Christine Bowditch’s article, Getting Rid of Troublemakers: High School Disciplinary Procedures and the Production of Dropouts. Mr. Leary, a school disciplinarian, picked up the next file on his desk and began a dialogue with a student, Kenneth. Quoting the dialogue, Bowditch writes:

            Leary:  “Kenneth?”

            Kenneth:  “Yeah”

            Leary:  “Sit down”. Kenneth slumped down into the chair in front of Mr. Leary’s desk. In a combative voice: “I’ve got a pink slip here that says that you were disrupting class. Talking. I thought we had this straightened out. Wasn’t this straightened out?”

            Kenneth:  Muttering, “Yeah. I guess so”

            Leary:  “What do you mean, ‘I guess so’? If it were straightened out you wouldn’t be here…it says here that you were talking in class. So what is this? I’ve got three others [pink slips] here for the same thing. Now what’s the problem…what class is it?”

            Kenneth:  “Math”

            Leary:  “How are you doing in it?” Kenneth shrugged. “Well, did you pass in the last report?” Kenneth nodded. “What grade did you get, then?” Mr. Leary shouted, clearly exasperated.

            Kenneth:  After a slight hesitation. “Two A’s and a B. I think I had an 89 for the last report and A’s for the ones before.”

            Leary:  Visibly surprised. “You have A’s and B’s in math?” Slight pause, then, “You’re in what, general math?”

            Kenneth:  “Algebra”

            Leary:  “Are you passing all your classes?”

            Kenneth:  “Yeah”

            Leary:  “Were you on honor roll?”

Kenneth:  “Yeah”

After the realization of Kenneth’s academic standing, Leary begins to reason with Kenneth about the excessive talking.

Leary:  “Well, if you finish up early can’t you help out someone who isn’t as bright as you, who has trouble in math…a bright boy like you shouldn’t have to go through all of this…this is Mickey Mouse stuff”. After Kenneth left the office. Leary says to Bowditch, “Clearly a classroom problem. A kid like that can understand if you reason with him. It’s not like some of the barely educable kids we see in here.”

The author further describes a number of other examples of students who had three pink slips for disrupting class, a prior interview with a parent, and a sullen and “uncooperative” demeanor. She states that this combination “normally led to a student’s suspension, a significant act in the creation of an official record”. The official record the author mentions here is the paper trail that is the making of a forced out of school student. In this case, Kenneth began the conversation being viewed as a troublemaker. During the course of their interaction, however, Mr. Leary “perceived” that Kenneth could be reasoned with. The talking in class became “Mickey Mouse stuff”. Kenneth’s grades altered the meaning of his behavior. Bowditch clarifies:

           “In most workers’ minds, students who received high grades demonstrated that they accepted the school’s requirements and, presumably, acknowledged the values of the school’s work…his [Kenneth’s]talking in class, even if it recurred weekly, represented not a ‘repeated violation of school rules’ [as school discipline policy states], but a problem with the teacher’s ability to control the class”.

Latino students who aren’t “perceived” as valuing education and don’t appear to conform to school policies become vulnerable to the power of school officials to produce certain labels. Students who violate school rules—discipline policies—just as often and in the same manner as many Latino students, often get a pass (Bowditch, 1993). Most Latino students don’t get this pass. Their same behavior is labeled deviant and a violation of school rules that “requires” punishment and eventual dropping. Of course, all of this, labeling and punishment, is left up to the interpretation of school personnel. The meaning of behavior is subjective. Are the so-called “risk factors” associated with dropping out of school because school personnel use them to “get rid of” certain students? Are dropouts being produced?

            For an abundance of reasons, Latino students are many times disengaged from school. Mehan (1997) explicates:

            “Nonimmigrant minorities (African-American, Native American, and Latinos) have a different folk model of schooling that encourages different patterns of behavior. They tend to equate schooling [not learning] with assimilation into the dominant group, a course of action that they actively resist. As a result, they do not try to achieve academically; instead, they engage in collective actions of resistance against school and societal norms, the most extreme of which is dropping out”.

Like other historically oppressed groups in the U.S., this method has proven to be devastating to the stratification of Latinos in education (Mehan, 1997; Trueba, 1983; Valenzuela, 2002; Valencia, 2004). Students will need to find ways to acquire the tools necessary to flourish in the society that they live in, while at the same time remain who they are as cultural individuals. This is a formidable task for anyone, particularly children, many of whom are trying to adapt to a new country and language. Policies—especially discipline policies—must change in ways that include various perspectives and that are constructive to students from various backgrounds. Without substantial effort from both parties there is little hope for Latino students. Most school personnel are part of the dominant culture (Anglo) and are trained with little to no understanding of Latino cultures.

            This recipe has proven to be fatal and has left Latino students destined to fail or become manufactured dropouts (Reyes & Valencia, 1993; Valenzuela, 1999; 2000; 2002). Valenzuela (2002) affirms that “every single practitioner needs to posses the intellectual capital that enables him or her to distinguish between teaching that is culturally relevant and politically aware and that which is culturally subtractive and politically unaware”. Education policy needs real reform, the type of reform that includes all groups of peoples’ voices at the table of decision-making.

Conclusion

                In very subtle and insidious ways, Latino students who don’t fit certain criteria (e.g. good grades, quiet, and “obedient”) are being manufactured out of schools across the country. Deviant or “bad behavior”, is frequently due to a mismatch between the cultural characteristics of the student and those of the school (Reyes & Valencia, 1993). This mismatch is regularly due to misunderstandings from both school personnel and Latino students. Students become “disaffected, withdraw from academic pursuits, act up in class, ignore assignments and homework, cut classes, and eventually drop out” (Mehan, 1997); school personnel constructs what they deem deviant, label those that exude this behavior, and process them out of school.

            The process that schools too often use to produce Latino dropouts is summed up in the following: Schools, without the inclusion of students and parents, decide what is deviant behavior; along these same parent and student excluding measures, schools then decide who is deviant; they further determine how to “deal” with this deviance by compiling a paper trail so as to legitimize “getting rid of” particular students. It is key to note that troublemakers, as often labeled, act in similar ways as many of the other students but get more severe punishment as a result. School officials follow this production process without an attempt to critically probe into answering why certain students behave in the manner that they do. If school officials would ask and answer the question of why certain student’s deviant behavior is treated as a “repeated violation of school rules” whereas others are treated as a problem with the teacher’s ability to control the class and “Mickey Mouse stuff”, it would appear to be extremely profitable. There are tested measures that can be taken that can help rectify this situation.

Positive behavioral reductive techniques[5], including modeling various differential reinforcements (Mayer, 2001), like social skills training[6], is based on teaching students how to behave, not on how not to behave (as are punitive measures). These techniques are tested and have been used for decades but in rare cases. Most schools that serve large numbers of Latinos still use the assimilationist model of coercion and subtractive schooling that breeds discontent and rebellion. Existing organizational, administrative, curricular, and instructional policies all combine to stunt the academic growth of too many students. Failure to heed, and respond adequately to the increasing problems of Latino youth will further jeopardize the economic, political, and social security of our country. It is imperative that all people groups and social classes get a voice at the table of decision-making.

 

References

 

Bowditch, C. (1993). Getting Rid of Troublemakers: High School Disciplinary Procedures and the Production of Dropouts. Social Problems, Vol. 40, No.4 , 493-509.

Fine, M. (1991). Framing Dropouts: Notes on the Politics of an Urban High School. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Goldschmidt, P., & Wang, J. (1999). When Can Schools Affect Dropout Behavior? A Longitudinal Multilevel Analysis. American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 36, No.4 , 715-738.

Mayer, G. R. (2001). Antisocial Behavior: Its Causes and Prevention Within Our Schools. Education and Treatment of Children, Vol. 24, No. 4 , 414-429.

Mehan, H. (January 8, 1997). Contextual Factors Surrounding Hispanic Dropouts. San Diego: Hispanic Dropout Project; found online at http://www.ncela.gwa.edu/pubs/hdp/1/.

Oakes, J. (2005 2nd Edition). Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

Schwartz, F. (1981, Summer). Supporting or Subverting Learning: Peer Group Patterns in Four Tracked Schools. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, Vol.12, No.2. , pp. 99-121.

Trueba, H. T. (1983, Fall). Adjustment Problems of Mexican and Mexican-American Students: An Anthropological Study. Learning Disability Quarterly, Vol. 6 , 395-415.

U.S. Department of Education. (2000). Effective Alternative Strategies: Grant competition to reduce student suspensions and expulsions and ensure educational progress of suspended and expelled students. Washington D. C.: Safe and drug-free school program. OMB# 1810-0551.

Valencia, R. R. (2004). Chicano School Failure and Success: Past, Present, and Future 2nd Edition. London and NewYork: RoutledgeFalmer.

Valenzuela, A. (2002). Reflections on the Subtractive Underpinnings of Education Research Policy. Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 53, No. 3 , 235-241.

Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive Schooling:U.S.-Mexican Youth and the Politics of Caring. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Valenzuela, A. (November, 2000). The Significance of the TAAS Test for Mexican Immigrant and Mexican American Adolescents: A Case Study. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, Vol.22, No. 4 , 524-539.

 

 

---

[1] Push-outs refer to students who are forced to leave school.

[2] Stop-outs refer to students who withdraw from school and then return.

[3] Defined as the student’s continued violation of school expectations; for example, Bowditch states: “Mr. Weis told Carl’s mother that he needed more responsibility and discipline at home….During the course of this discussion, someone delivered Carl’s grades to Mr. Weis which showed he[Carl] was failing all of his classes…Mr. Weis said, ‘I have no time for this. I am writing here, to be dropped from school at age seventeen if there is no improvement in grades and attendance’. So you’ll receive a letter this summer, when we make our review….This posture by a school official seems likely to affect secondary deviance…Mr. Weis has emphasized to Carl that the school has little stake in his success and a primarily negative vision of his social value and personal worth—the very conditions which may strengthen his hostility toward the school and foster his commitment to the troublemaker role”. (1993)

[4] Defined as the type of schooling that divests Mexican youth of important social and cultural resources, leaving them progressively vulnerable to academic failure; subtractive schooling dismisses the Mexicanidad definition of education which is grounded in Mexican culture; it also is structurally designed to deprive Mexican students of their culture and language. Results include disaffection towards schooling, psychic withdrawal, resistance, lack of social ties and diminished academic aspirations.

[5] See Mayer, G. R. et al., (2000). Classroom management: A California resource guide. CA Dept. of Education and LA County Office of Education, Safe Schools Center.

[6] See Colvin, G., & Sugai, G. (1998). Proactive strategies for managing social behavior problems: An instructional approach. Education and Treatment of Children, 11, 341-348.