next
lind
peguero2016.pdf
Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 2017, Vol. 39(1) 98 –125
© The Author(s) 2016 Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0739986316679633
journals.sagepub.com/home/hjb
Article
Punishing Latina/o Youth: School Justice, Fairness, Order, Dropping Out, and Gender Disparities
Anthony A. Peguero1, Jennifer M. Bondy1, and Zahra Shekarkhar2
Abstract Although Latina/o youth are one the fastest growing segments of the U.S. population, they face a number of educational hurdles, such as disproportionate school punishment and increased risk of dropping out of high school. This topic is particularly relevant today in the midst of the current social, political, and economic debate over the “school-to-prison pipeline.” This study draws from the Educational Longitudinal Study and utilizes multilevel modeling to analyze the relationships between school justice, fairness, order, dropping out, and gender disparities for 1,800 Latina/o and 6,300 White public school students. Findings suggest that school punishment is contributing to Latina/o youth dropping out; however, it is also evident that improving school justice and fairness can ameliorate the risk of dropping out for Latina/o youth. The significance and implications of justice, fairness, and order for Latina/o youth within the United States school system are discussed more generally.
Keywords school, justice, education, dropout, race and ethnicity
1Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA 2Fayetteville State University, Fayetteville, NC, USA
Corresponding Author: Anthony A. Peguero, Department of Sociology, Virginia Tech, 560 McBryde Hall 0137, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA. Email: [email protected]
679633HJBXXX10.1177/0739986316679633Hispanic Journal of Behavioral SciencesPeguero et al. research-article2016
Peguero et al. 99
Introduction
The “school-to-prison pipeline” is one of the most debated social and educa- tional processes facing the U.S. juvenile justice and education system today. In essence, the school-to-prison pipeline process suggests that stringent puni- tive school policies, such as detentions, suspensions and truancy policies, and the like steer or funnel youth out of schools and increase the likelihood of contact with the juvenile or adult justice system (Gregory, Skiba, & Noguera, 2010; Hirschfield, 2008; Kim, Losen, & Hewitt, 2010; Pantoja, 2013). Although the school-to-prison pipeline denotes a direct link between school punishment and adult incarceration, there are arguably a number of detrimen- tal developmental pathways, such as educational failure or juvenile justice contact, school punishment could facilitate for youth (Gregory et al., 2010; Hirschfield, 2008; Pantoja, 2013; Rios, 2011). Moreover, research indicates the school-to-prison pipeline is disproportionately affecting Latina/o youth as well as derailing their educational progress (Gregory et al., 2010; Kim et al., 2010; Pantoja, 2013; Rios, 2011). Studies over time have shown exclusionary punishment strategies to have a profound impact on Latina/o students in numerous ways. Dating back to the 1980s, as well as up to the current day, research highlights the association between school punishment and poor test scores, academic failure, and the risk of dropping out (Arcia, 2007; Gregory et al., 2010; Kim et al., 2010; Reyes, 2006; Rios, 2011; Skiba, Horner, Chung, & Rausch, 2011). By design, exclusionary punishment strategies remove stu- dents from the classroom through placement of students in short-term, or possibly long-term, settings such as in-school suspension, out-of-school sus- pension, or alternative education discipline sites (Arcia, 2007; Kim et al., 2010; Reyes, 2006; Skiba et al., 2011). Thus, punished Latina/o students receive fewer opportunities than their peers to obtain necessary classroom instruction, which increases the risk of academic failure (Arcia, 2007; Gregory et al., 2010; Reyes, 2006; Rios, 2011). Gregory et al. (2010) high- lighted the link between the so-called “achievement gap” and racial/ethnic disparities with school punishment, including for Latina/o students. Indeed, racial/ethnic disparities with school punishment could restrict Latina/o stu- dents’ educational opportunities to learn as well as access to academic resources (Arcia, 2007; Peguero, Portillos, & González, 2015; Portillos, González, & Peguero, 2012; Reyes, 2006; Rios, 2011). Gregory et al. (2010) even refer to the racial/ethnic achievement gap and the racial/ethnic “disci- pline gap” as “two sides of the same coin” (p. 59). It is also believed that the enforcement and consequences of school punishment are conceptually reflec- tive of the procedural justice practices within that school (Cooper, 2013; Peguero & Bracy, 2015; Portillos et al., 2012; Rios, 2011).
100 Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 39(1)
Schools are sites of socialization; after one’s own family, schools inform and shape students’ learning of social norms, values, and culture, as well as how students come to understand their civic orientations and engagement (Dewey, 1916; Kozol, 2006, 2012; López, 2003; Peguero & Bracy, 2015; Valenzuela, 1999). Dewey (1916) first called attention to the link between education and democracy, arguing that public schools could level the playing field between the advantaged and the less advantaged, and serve as appren- ticeship for civic life. Since Dewey’s (1916) seminal work, and given the powerful socializing effect of schools, researchers have scrutinized the socialization processes occurring within schools. Consequently, some high- light the significance of procedural justice within schools and the potential behavioral and educational benefits when students believe that their schools are sites of just and fair treatment (Peguero & Bracy, 2015; Rios, 2011; Valenzuela, 1999). However, Latina/o students have diminished perceptions that their schools are just and fair (Brown & Benedict, 2005; Kozol, 2006, 2012; López, 2003; Peguero & Bondy, 2015; Portillos et al., 2012; Rios, 2011). What remains uncertain is how the relationship between school pun- ishment and procedural justice is associated with Latina/o students’ likeli- hood of dropping out.
This study extends the literature on procedural justice, punishment, drop- ping out, and Latina/o educational progress and success by examining the roles of school justice and fairness, rules, order, and punishment toward the likelihood of dropping out. In addition, this study seeks to investigate whether these aforementioned relationships differ for Latina/o and White students as well as whether there are gender distinctions. The next section of this research presents the pertinent research findings about procedural justice, punishment, and gender disparities for Latina/o students. A multilevel analysis, which employs a nationally representative data on students’ educational and school experiences, investigates the relationships between Latina/o students’ gender, procedural justice, and school punishment. Finally, a discussion about the punishment of Latina/o students in U.S. schools is presented.
School Justice, Fairness, Order, and Punishment for Latina/o Students
Procedural justice refers to fairness in the formal and informal processes of resolving disputes (Kim et al., 2010; Kupchik, 2010; Peguero & Bracy, 2015; Rios, 2011). The importance of procedural justice has been demonstrated in a variety of contexts, including those involving police contact with commu- nity members, courts of law, work, and school environments (Kim et al.,
Peguero et al. 101
2010; Peguero & Bracy, 2015; Rios, 2011). Theoretically, when people believe a law is legitimate, they are more likely to obey (Kim et al., 2010; Kupchik, 2010; Peguero & Bracy, 2015; Rios, 2011). Similarly, when people feel they have been treated fairly by an authority, they are more likely to comply with the authority’s decisions, even when they disagree with the deci- sion (Kim et al., 2010; Kupchik, 2010; Peguero & Bracy, 2015; Rios, 2011). When applied to students and schools, procedural justice generally refers to student beliefs about the fairness of school rules and application of punish- ment practices (Kim et al., 2010; Kupchik, 2010; Peguero & Bracy, 2015; Rios, 2011). Students who perceive school rules and punishment practices as just and fair have improved interpersonal relationships with teachers and administrators, strong bonds to their school and education, decreased school misbehavior, increased perceptions of school safety and order, and educa- tional achievement (Kim et al., 2010; Kupchik, 2010; Peguero & Bracy, 2015; Rios, 2011). Conversely, students who perceive the school rules and punishment practices as unjust or unfair have weakened bonds to school and their own education, more school misbehavior, and poorer educational prog- ress (Bondy, Peguero, & Johnson, In press; Kim et al., 2010; Kupchik, 2010; Peguero & Bracy, 2015; Rios, 2011). It is also noted that Latina/o students have diminished beliefs that their schools are just and fair places, which is detrimental toward Latina/o students’ educational progress and success (López, 2003; Noguera, 2008; Pantoja, 2013; Peguero & Bondy, 2015; Portillos et al., 2012; Rios, 2011).
Some argue that the U.S. educational and juvenile justice systems have become deeply interconnected as a consequence of imposing a deterrence theoretical framework toward addressing misbehavior (Kim et al., 2010; Pantoja, 2013; Rios, 2011). The phenomenon often referred to as the “school- to-prison pipeline” suggests how stringent or zero-tolerance school punish- ment policies are facilitating direct and indirect youth pathways out of the educational system and potentially toward the juvenile and criminal justice systems (Gregory et al., 2010; Kim et al., 2010; Pantoja, 2013; Skiba et al., 2011). Put in another way, this pipeline can be understood as a set of punish- ment policies and social control practices in schools that make it more likely that youth will be “pushed” out of school and into a situation that facilitates increased delinquent and criminal involvement as well as be excluded from the known social and educational benefits associated from involvement within the educational system (Luna & Revilla, 2013; Rios, 2011; Stearns & Glennie, 2006). It is also evident that Latina/o students are historically and currently being disproportionately punished at school, which is also having negative impacts on their educational progress and success (Gregory et al., 2010; Noguera, 2008; Rios, 2011).
102 Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 39(1)
The Significance of Gender
Because social, cultural, and educational processes are gendered, the expec- tations and norms imposed on Latina girls in comparison with their male counterparts can contribute to their distinct educational experiences (Bondy, 2014, 2015, 2016; Cammarota, 2004; Denner & Guzman, 2006; Gándara, 2015; López, 2003; Valenzuela, 1999). Findings indicate that expectations of educational failure and success, academic pursuits and attainments, area of educational interests such as math or science, “good” or “bad” school behav- ior, and experiences with school violence or misbehavior are all found to have distinct gender patterns for Latina students (Cammarota, 2004; Gándara & Contreras, 2009; López, 2003). Despite Latina students’ high educational aspirations, the high school graduation rate for Latina girls is lower than for White girls (Cammarota, 2004; Cólon & Sánchez, 2010; Gándara & Contreras, 2009; Hill & Torres, 2010; López, 2003; Rodríguez, 2014; Urbina & Wright, 2015). Furthermore, when Latina girls do leave school, they are not likely to return and complete school (Gándara & Contreras, 2009; Rodríguez, 2014; Urbina & Wright, 2015). Only 10% of Latinas complete 4 or more years of college compared with 23% of White women (Gándara, 2015; Urbina & Wright, 2015). Latina girls also believe that their schools are unsafe and disorderly (Cooper, 2013; Crenshaw, Ocen, & Nanda, 2015; Peguero & Bondy, 2015). Prior research has also demonstrated that Latino boys are often perceived and differentially treated as sources of “aggression” or “problem behavior” and warrant additional monitoring by teachers and administrators, which often result in increased formal sanctions (López, 2003; Portillos et al., 2012; Rios, 2011). Thus, Latino boys often report that their schools are unjust because they do receive increased monitoring, sur- veillance, and scrutiny for their behavior (Noguera, 2008; Portillos et al., 2012; Rios, 2011). However, White girls and boys are often perceived and treated as harmless, nonthreatening, studious, and well-mannered by teachers and administrators (Cooper, 2013; Crenshaw et al., 2015; López, 2003; Reyes, 2006). In this regard, the roles of race, ethnicity, and gender are sig- nificant in relationship to how Latina/o and White students perceive justice, fairness, and order within their schools.
It is well substantiated that Latino boys are disproportionally being pun- ished (Kim et al., 2010; Peguero & Shekarkhar, 2011; Rios, 2011; Skiba et al., 2011); however, there are fewer studies exploring the punishment of girls, especially Latina girls. Literature on school punishment often limits the discussion of gender, especially in relation to the impact of policing and pun- ishment of girls on school campuses, which is reflective of the argument of girls’ invisibility in juvenile justice (Crenshaw et al., 2015; Pasco & Lopez,
Peguero et al. 103
In press). In some studies of school punishment, a number of researchers note that gender is significant in disciplinary responses arguing that boys receive harsher punishments than girls and that girls are less likely to drop out of school than boys (Crenshaw et al., 2015; López, 2003; Luna & Revilla, 2013). One study by Peguero and Shekarkhar (2011) demonstrates that Latina girls are disproportionally being punished in comparison with White girls even after controlling for misbehavior. In a recent study, Crenshaw and col- leagues (2015) investigated and revealed the disproportionate punishment of minority girls within school, especially Black/African American and Latina girls. In their study, Crenshaw and colleagues report that “silence about at- risk girls is multidimensional and cross-institutional . . . girls of color rarely receive the full attention of researchers, advocates, policy makers, and funders” (p. 8). Crenshaw and colleagues (2015) revealed four pertinent find- ings to this particular study: first, that the relative magnitude of the racial disparity between girls is greater than the disparity between boys; second, punishment leads many minority girls to become disengaged from the learn- ing process and from school altogether; third, minority girls’ unease with security rituals such as passing through metal detectors dissuaded school attendance; fourth, minority girls’ perceived lack of attention from school faculty and staff leads to diminished school attachment in both high- and moderate-achieving girls. These findings indicate that the intersection of gen- der, race, and ethnicity matters in the disproportionate school punishment as well as the potential educational outcomes. What remains uncertain, how- ever, is how school punishment and procedural justice contribute to the likeli- hood of dropping out for Latina/o and White girls and boys.
The Current Study
As the United States becomes increasingly immersed in a global competitive market, addressing the educational and social dilemma of dropping out is imperative. Dropping out of high school is associated with a number of det- rimental outcomes. At the individual level, those who fail to complete school have poorer general health over the life course and are more likely to be unemployed, more likely to be delinquent and use drugs, and more likely to be incarcerated than their high school graduate counterparts (Cataldi, Laird, & KewalRamani, 2009; Rumberger, 2011; Stearns & Glennie, 2006; Tyler & Lofstrom, 2009). At the institutional level, high school dropouts are costly to the U.S. economy via unemployment, public health care expenses, and diminished tax contributions (Cataldi et al., 2009; Rumberger, 2011; Stearns & Glennie, 2006; Tyler & Lofstrom, 2009). Recent arguments contend, how- ever, that the phenomenon of dropping out is complex and nuanced. For
104 Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 39(1)
instance, there are a number of “push” and “pull” factors that influence the event of dropping out, particularly for Latina/o students (Crenshaw et al., 2015; Luna & Revilla, 2013; Pantoja, 2013; Rios, 2011). School punishment is contended to be a predominant “push” factor for dropping out, especially for Latina/o students (Crenshaw et al., 2015; Luna & Revilla, 2013; Pantoja, 2013; Rios, 2011). It is also evident that Latina/o youth are marginalized and face a number of barriers toward educational progress and success within U.S. schools, including perceiving their schools as disorderly, unjust, and unfair (Pantoja, 2013; Peguero & Bondy, 2015; Portillos et al., 2012; Rios, 2011). There are three central questions that emerge from this research dis- cussion thus far about the relationship between school procedural justice, punishment, and the event of dropping out of high school that remain unan- swered in extant literature about Latina/o students. Are school procedural justice and punishment associated with likelihood of dropping out for Latina/o students? If so, how does the intersection of gender, race, and eth- nicity moderate the relationships between school procedural justice, punish- ment, and dropping out? Could improving procedural justice be a way to moderate the likelihood of dropping out for Latina/o students?
Method
Sample
Data for this research are drawn from Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS), which is a survey administered by the Research Triangle Institute (RTI) for the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) of the U.S. Department of Education. ELS data also provide “mappings” to additional external data sets such as the Common Core of Data (CCD). The CCD is the Department of Education’s primary database on public elementary and sec- ondary education in the United States. The CCD provides much of school- level data (e.g., proportion of racial and ethnic minorities within a school). ELS begins the survey in the 10th grade and continues to observe the progres- sion into postsecondary and/or the workforce in this national sample (Ingels et al., 2007). These data include information about the experiences and back- grounds of students, parents, and teachers, and a description of the schools the students attended. ELS also includes imputed values (via sequential hot deck imputation) for certain key variables, including family socioeconomic status and achievement. This study used these imputed values in analyses. For other missing data for variables not imputed by ELS, this study utilized Stata 11’s “mi” command to perform multiple-imputation analysis, including imputation, data management, and estimation. This imputation procedure
Peguero et al. 105
provides five univariate and two multivariate imputation methods as well as combines the estimation and pooling steps of the multiple-imputation proce- dure. The final subsample of 1,800 Latina/o and 6,300 White students in 580 public schools is utilized for this analysis of perceptions of school justice and fairness, punishment, gender, race and ethnicity, and dropping out. Descriptive statistics for the entire sample are reported in Table 1.
Dropping Out
The dependent variable in this study is dropping out of school (dichotomized as 1 = yes and 0 = no). For the purposes of this study, dropping out (1 = yes) is indicated if a student was no longer enrolled in school by the third wave (i.e., second follow-up) of the study that occurred in 2006-2007, approxi- mately 4 years after the first wave. NCES researchers constructed a variable defined as “ever dropout” in the third wave of the study, capturing whether a student has ever dropped out since the initial 10th-grade survey. Using this third wave of data as the follow-up year provides the most reliable informa- tion regarding whether a student “ever” dropped out of high school, because the first follow-up that occurred 2 years later may not have captured all stu- dents who may have eventually dropped out.
School Justice and Fairness
Student Perceptions of Just and Fair School Punishment Practices is a con- structed scale based on two Likert-type scale items (0 = strongly disagree, 1 = disagree, 2 = agree, and 3 = strongly agree) that the student self-reported: (1) The school rules are fair, and (2) the punishment for breaking school rules is the same no matter who you are. The range for student perceptions of just and fair school punishment practices is from 0 to 6, with higher values repre- senting stronger perceptions of school justice and fairness.
School Rules
Student Perceptions of the School Rules is a constructed scale based on three Likert-type scale items (0 = strongly disagree, 1 = disagree, 2 = agree, and 3 = strongly agree) that the student self-reported: (1) Everyone knows what the school rules are, (2) if a school rule is broken, students know what kind of punishment will follow, and (3) school rules are strictly enforced. The range for student perceptions of the school rules is from 0 to 9, with higher values representing heightened perceptions of the school rules.
106 Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 39(1)
School Order
Student Perceptions of School Order is a constructed scale based on seven Likert-type scale items (0 = strongly disagree, 1 = disagree, 2 = agree, and 3 = strongly agree) that the student self-reported: (1) Fights often occur between
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics.
Range M SD
Student-level variables Dependent Dropping out 0-1 0.12 0.32 Independent School justice and fairness 0-6 3.01 1.49 School rules 0-9 5.18 1.84 School order 0-21 12.56 2.73 School punishment 0-1 0.15 0.35 Race and ethnicity Latina/o 0-1 0.23 0.42 White 0-1 0.77 0.42 Student characteristics Female 0-1 0.51 0.50 Achievement 21.56-78.30 50.34 9.83 Expectations 1-8 4.97 1.42 Involvement 0-4 1.45 1.14 Victimization 0-1 0.40 0.48 Misbehavior 0-4 0.56 0.89 Family characteristics Socioeconomic status −1.97-1.98 −0.04 0.70 Structure 0-1 0.79 0.40 Involvement 0-8 5.19 2.69 School-level variables % racial and ethnic minorities 0-100 36.86 31.59 Poverty 0-100 24.93 18.63 Size 52-4,631 1,411 839.90 Security 0-11 3.58 2.33 Physical disorder 0-15 1.22 1.70 Social disorder 0-19 12.84 1.68 Urban 0-1 0.28 0.45 Rural 0-1 0.22 0.42 Suburban 0-1 0.50 0.50
Peguero et al. 107
different racial and ethnic groups (reverse coded), (2) there are gangs in school (reverse coded), (3) disruptions by other students get in the way of my learning (reverse coded), (4) other students often disrupt class (reverse coded), (5) students make friends with students of other racial and ethnic groups, (6) students get along well with teachers, and (7) I don’t feel safe at this school (reverse coded). The range for student perceptions of the school order is from 0 to 21, with higher values representing increased perceptions of school order.
Punishment
Students are asked whether they have received one of three forms of school punishment during the 2001-2002 academic year: (1) in-school suspension, (2) suspension or probation, or (3) transferred to another school for disciplin- ary reasons (0 = never, 1 = 1-2 times, 2 = 3-6 times, 3 = 7-9 times, and 4 = 10 or more times). School punishment is dichotomized to indicate whether or not the student was punished at school.
Gender
Gender is coded male or female based on the student’s self-report of his or her biological sex.
Race Ethnicity
In ELS, individual-level race and ethnicity are measured as the adolescents’ self-report regarding with which racial and ethnic group they identify. The sample included 1,800 Latina/o and 6,300 White (reference group) public school students. Latina/o students were oversampled in ELS to obtain a suf- ficient representation for statistical analyses. Therefore, the sample weights calculated by NCES are applied during the statistical analysis to compensate for the sampling design and for nonresponse bias (see Ingels et al., 2007, for further detail).
Student, Family, and School Characteristics
Previous studies have established that a number of student, family, and school characteristics are associated with school procedural justice, punishment, dropping out of school, and/or Latina/o educational progress and success. Because student characteristics (i.e., educational achievement, expecta- tions, involvement, victimization, and misbehavior), family characteristics
108 Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 39(1)
(i.e., socioeconomic status, structure, and involvement), and school charac- teristics (i.e., proportion of racial and ethnic minorities within a school, pov- erty, size, security, physical and social disorder, and locale) are known to be associated with school procedural justice, punishment, dropping out of school, and/or Latina/o educational progress and success, these control measures are included in this research analysis (Crenshaw et al., 2015; Gándara, 2015; Gándara & Contreras, 2009; Gregory et al., 2010; Hill & Torres, 2010; Kozol, 2006, 2012; Kupchik, 2010; Mena, 2011; Niehaus, Rudasill, & Adelson, 2012; Peguero & Bracy, 2015; Peguero et al., 2015; Peguero & Shekarkhar, 2011; Rios, 2011; Rodríguez, 2014; Rumberger, 2011; Tyler & Lofstrom, 2009; Urbina & Wright, 2015; Valenzuela, 1999).
Student characteristics. Student educational achievement is measured by using the standardized measure developed by RTI and NCES. ELS included a reading and math composite score based on standardized tests developed by the Educational Testing Service (ETS). The composite score is the average of the math and reading standardized scores, re-standardized to a national mean of 50.0 and standard deviation of 10. Student educational expectations is based on one item, “as things stand now, how far in school do you think you will get?” asked on the questionnaire administered to students at 12th grade. This was an eight-category variable that ranged from 1 = less than high school graduation to 8 = obtain PhD, MD, or other advanced degree. Student school involvement variable measures whether the student is involved in any of the following extracurricular activities: (1) academic (e.g., honor society, band, yearbook), (2) school clubs, (3) intramural sports, and (4) interscholas- tic sports. Student victimization is measured by three items: (1) Someone threatened to hurt me at school, (2) someone hit me, and (3) someone used strong-arm or forceful methods to get money or things from me. The mea- surements of student victimization are dichotomized to indicate whether or not the student experienced a form of victimization while at school. Student misbehavior is based on self-report of various forms of misbehavior at school. Misbehavior is measured by two items (0 = never, 1 = 1-2 times, 2 = more than twice): (1) cutting or skipping classes and (2) getting into a physical fight at school. The range for student misbehavior is from 0 to 4, with higher values representing greater levels of misbehavior.
Family characteristics. The NCES pre-constructed measure of family socioeco- nomic status is a standardized (z-score) variable based on five equally weighted, standardized components: father’s/male guardian’s education, mother’s/female guardian’s education, family income, father’s/male guard- ian’s occupational prestige, and mother’s/female guardian’s occupational
Peguero et al. 109
prestige. Family structure is a dichotomous variable that measures whether two parents/guardians are present in the adolescent’s household. A single par- ent/guardian household serves as the reference group. Family involvement is an eight-item-count index that measures how active the adolescent’s parents/ guardians are in his or her education. The items are (1) checking homework, (2) helping with homework, (3) discussing school courses, (4) discussing school activities, (5) discussing topics studied in class, (6) discussing grades, (7) discussing transferring, and (8) discussing college attendance. The count index ranges from 0 to 8, with higher scores indicating higher levels of family involvement.
School characteristics. As noted, the CCD provides the information for the proportion of racial and ethnic minorities that are within a school. School poverty is measured as the proportion of students within each school who were receiving free or reduce-priced lunches. School size is measured as the total student enrollment of the school. School administrators answered 11 questions about school security measures implemented at their school (e.g., control access to school buildings during school hours, require students to pass through metal detectors each day, require clear book bags or ban book bags on school grounds, etc.). Independent NCES researchers recorded the prevalence of the school’s physical disorder based on 15 physical indicators of disorder (e.g., graffiti on the walls/doors/ceilings, classroom broken lights, graffiti on desks, etc.). School administrators answered 19 questions about school social disorder that indicate whether or not a series of potential prob- lems are an issue at their school (e.g., physical conflicts, robbery or theft, use of alcohol, etc.). School locale indicates whether the school is located in an urban, rural, or suburban (reference category) locale.
Analytical Strategy
ELS is designed as a cluster sample in which schools are sampled with unequal probability and then students are sampled or “nested” within these selected schools, with the result that the subsample of ELS violates the independence assumption. The nested structure of ELS (i.e., students within schools) makes multilevel modeling an appropriate analytic tool (Raudenbush, Bryk, & Congdon, 2008). Because dropping out is a dichotomous variable for this study, Heirchacial Generalized Linear Modeling (HGLM) is utilized to analyze the multilevel relationships between gender, race, ethnicity, procedural justice, punishment, and dropping out of school. All Level 1 (student) and Level 2 (school) predictors have been centered on their group and grand means, allow- ing us to examine the probability of dropping out within each school.
110 Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 39(1)
The analyses proceed in several steps. Table 1 presents descriptive statis- tics for the variables examined in this study. Additionally, because gender, race, and ethnicity are central to this study, Table 2 presents individual-level descriptive statistics by gender, race, and ethnicity. Table 3 displays the HGLM results of the relationships and interactions between procedural jus- tice, punishment, race, ethnicity, and pertinent factors for the likelihood of girls dropping out. In the baseline model of Table 3, dropping out is regressed on students’ race and ethnicity. In model 2 of Table 3, dropping out is regressed on race and ethnicity, procedural justice (i.e., perceptions of justice and fairness, school rules, and order), and punishment. In model 3, student, family, and school control variables are added to the analyses. To understand whether procedural justice and punishment, especially for Latina girls, are factors toward the likelihood of dropping out for girls, interactions are added to the analyses and presented in the final model 4 of Table 3. The same ana- lytical plan to examine the relationships between procedural justice, punish- ment, race, ethnicity, and pertinent factors for dropping out for boys is presented in Table 4.
Results
Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive statistics for all variables are presented in Table 1. For the student key variables presented in Table 1, 12% of the students in the sample had a dropout event. The average level of students’ perception of school justice and fairness was 3.01 on a 6-point scale. The average level of students’ perception of the school rules was 5.18 on a 9-point scale. The average level of students’ perception of school order was 12.56 on a 21-point scale. For punishment, 15% of students in the sample received a form of school punishment. There are significant differences for key student variables by gender, race, and eth- nicity. For girls, Latinas (M = 0.16, SD = 0.36) report more dropout events than their White (M = 0.09, SD = 0.28) counterparts. Latina girls (M = 3.21, SD = 1.49) report increased perceptions of school justice and fairness than White girls (M = 3.03, SD = 1.46). Latina girls (M = 11.83, SD = 2.75) report lower levels of perceived school order than White girls (M = 12.85, SD = 2.59). Latina girls (M = 0.16, SD = 0.37) are being punished at a higher per- centage than White (M = 0.10, SD = 0.29) girls. As for other student charac- teristics, Latina girls have relatively lower levels of achievement, expectations, involvement, and victimization as well as lower family socioeconomic status and less family involvement than White girls. For boys, Latino boys (M = 0.21, SD = 0.41) report more dropout events than their White (M = 0.11,
Peguero et al. 111
Table 2. Student-Level Descriptives by Gender, Race, and Ethnicity.
Latina White
M SD M SD
Girls Dependent Dropping out 0.16 0.36 0.09 0.28*** Independent School justice and fairness 3.21 1.49 3.03 1.46*** School rules 5.40 1.91 5.30 1.77 School order 11.83 2.75 12.85 2.59*** School punishment 0.16 0.37 0.10 0.29*** Student characteristics Achievement 44.57 9.14 52.27 8.88*** Expectations 4.98 1.43 5.31 1.29*** Involvement 1.16 1.14 1.67 1.15*** Victimization 0.30 0.45 0.35 0.47** Misbehavior 0.69 0.92 0.42 0.76*** Family characteristics Socioeconomic status −0.49 0.65 0.06 0.67*** Structure 0.75 0.43 0.80 0.39* Involvement 4.79 2.94 5.78 2.25*** Boys Dependent Dropping out 0.21 0.41 0.11 0.31*** Independent School justice and fairness 2.93 1.55 2.94 1.51 School rules 4.96 2.02 5.07 1.83 School order 11.63 2.77 12.76 2.76** School punishment 0.26 0.43 0.17 0.37 Student characteristics Achievement 44.21 9.56 51.92 9.65*** Expectations 4.52 1.49 4.74 1.45*** Involvement 1.21 1.11 1.39 1.09*** Victimization 0.41 0.49 0.47 0.49*** Misbehavior 0.86 1.03 0.58 0.93*** Family characteristics Socioeconomic status −0.43 0.65 0.08 0.65*** Structure 0.73 0.44 0.81 0.39*** Involvement 4.02 3.08 5.03 2.73***
Note. Significant differences between males and females are denoted with asterisks. Significance tests are based on chi-square tests (for dummy variables) and Welch’s t tests (for continuous variables), and verified with nonparametric Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney tests. *p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001.
112
T a b
le 3
. H
ie ra
rc hi
ca l G
en er
al iz
ed L
in ea
r M
o de
l E ffe
ct s
(S E)
a nd
O R
f o r
G ir
ls ’ D
ro pp
in g
O ut
.
M o de
l 1 M
o de
l 2 M
o de
l 3 M
o de
l 4
b
(S E)
O R
b (S
E) O
R b
(S E)
O R
b (S
E) O
R
W it hi
n sc
ho o l
R ac
e/ et
hn ic
it y
an d
in te
ra ct
io ns
La
ti na
− 2.
17 7
(. 05
7) **
* .1
13 .4
96 (
.2 19
)* 1.
64 3
.0 15
( .2
25 )
1. 01
5 .3
60 (
.8 70
) 1.
43 3
Sc
ho o l J
us ti ce
an
d Fa
ir ne
ss ×
La
ti na
— —
− .1
75 (
.0 52
)* **
.8 38
− .0
94 (
.0 51
)* .9
09 −
.1 33
( .0
61 )*
.8 75
— —
— —
.1 12
( .1
04 )
1. 11
9
Sc
ho o l R
ul es
×
La ti na
— —
.0 50
( .0
43 )
1. 05
1 −
.0 08
( .0
44 )
.9 91
.0 12
( .0
52 )
1. 01
2 —
— —
— −
.0 61
( .0
82 )
.9 40
Sc
ho o l O
rd er
×
La ti na
— —
− .0
71 (
.0 29
)* *
.9 31
− .0
17 (
.0 33
) .9
83 −
.0 10
( .0
38 )
.9 89
— —
— —
− .0
22 (
.0 63
) .9
77
Sc ho
o l P
un is
hm en
t ×
L at
in a
— —
1. 53
8 (. 16
9) **
* 4.
65 7
.7 23
( .1
93 )*
** 2.
06 1
.8 54
( .2
28 )*
** 2.
34 9
— —
— —
− .3
58 (
.3 38
) .6
99
St ud
en t
ch ar
ac te
ri st
ic s
A ch
ie ve
m en
t —
— —
— −
.0 37
( .0
09 )*
** .9
63 −
.0 36
( .0
09 )
** *
.9 63
Ex pe
ct at
io ns
— —
— —
− .2
56 (
.0 53
)* **
.7 73
− .2
55 (
.0 53
)* **
.7 74
In vo
lv em
en t
— —
— —
− .2
84 (
.0 53
)* **
.7 52
− .2
76 (
.0 54
)* **
.7 58
V ic
ti m
iz at
io n
— —
— —
− .1
38 (
.1 27
) .8
70 −
.1 37
( .1
27 )
.8 71
M is
be ha
vi o r
— —
— —
.4 22
( .0
84 )*
** 1.
52 6
.4 18
( .0
83 )*
** 1.
52 0
Fa
m ily
c ha
ra ct
er is
ti cs
(c on
tin ue
d)
113
M o de
l 1 M
o de
l 2 M
o de
l 3 M
o de
l 4
b
(S E)
O R
b (S
E) O
R b
(S E)
O R
b (S
E) O
R
So ci
o ec
o no
m ic
st
at us
— —
— —
− .5
19 (
.1 23
)* **
.5 94
− .5
18 (
.1 24
)* **
.5 95
St ru
ct ur
e —
— —
— −
.0 56
( .1
51 )
.9 44
− .0
48 (
.1 51
) .9
52
In
vo lv
em en
t —
— —
— −
.0 63
( .0
26 )*
* .9
38 −
.0 64
( .0
26 )*
* .9
37 B
et w
ee n
sc ho
o ls
%
r ac
ia l a
nd e
th ni
c m
in o ri
ti es
— —
— —
.0 07
( .0
03 )*
* 1.
00 7
.0 08
( .0
03 )*
* 1.
00 8
Po
ve rt
y —
— —
— .0
17 (
.0 04
)* **
1. 01
8 .0
17 (
.0 04
)* **
1. 01
8
Si ze
— —
— —
− .0
01 (
.0 01
) .9
97 −
.0 01
( .0
01 )
.9 97
Se
cu ri
ty —
— —
— −
.0 42
( .0
25 )*
.9 58
− .0
42 (
.0 25
)* .9
58
Ph ys
ic al
d is
o rd
er —
— —
— −
.0 03
( .0
46 )
.9 96
− .0
04 (
.0 46
) .9
95
So ci
al d
is o rd
er —
— —
— .0
54 (
.0 47
) 1.
05 5
.0 51
( .0
47 )
1. 05
3
U rb
an —
— —
— .1
79 (
.1 51
)† 1.
19 6
.1 86
( .1
51 )†
1. 20
5
R ur
al —
— —
— .1
27 (
.1 71
) 1.
13 5
.1 28
( .1
71 )
1. 13
6 In
te rc
ep t
.5 88
( .2
07 )*
* −
2. 31
0 (. 05
9) **
* −
2. 58
1 (. 07
0) **
* −
2. 58
4 (. 07
0) **
*
V
ar ia
nc e
χ2 V
ar ia
nc e
χ2 V
ar ia
nc e
χ2 V
ar ia
nc e
χ2
R an
do m
e ffe
ct s
.2 71
** *
70 0.
64 2
.3 09
** *
71 8.
16 9
.2 95
** *
66 9.
96 6
.2 95
** *
66 9.
34 72
6
N ot
e. T
he o
m it te
d ca
te go
ri es
a re
W hi
te s
tu de
nt s
an d
st ud
en ts
w ho
w er
e no
t di
sc ip
lin ed
a nd
v ic
ti m
iz ed
; a nd
, n o n-
ur ba
n sc
ho o ls
. O R
= o
dd s
ra ti o .
† p ≤
.1 . *
p ≤
.0 5.
* *p
≤ .0
1. *
** p ≤
.0 01
.
T a b
le 3
. (c
o n
ti n
u e d
)
114
T a b
le 4
. H
ie ra
rc hi
ca l G
en er
al iz
ed L
in ea
r M
o de
l E ffe
ct s
(S E)
a nd
O R
f o r
B o ys
’ D ro
pp in
g O
ut .
M o de
l 5 M
o de
l 6 M
o de
l 7 M
o de
l 8
b
(S E)
O R
b (S
E) O
R b
(S E)
O R
b (S
E) O
R
W it hi
n sc
ho o l
R ac
e/ et
hn ic
it y
an d
in te
ra ct
io ns
La
ti no
.6 75
( .1
97 )*
** 1.
96 4
.4 91
( .2
07 )*
* 1.
63 5
.3 27
( .2
16 )†
1. 38
7 −
.3 71
( .6
80 )
.6 89
Sc
ho o l J
us ti ce
a nd
Fa
ir ne
ss ×
L at
in o
— —
− .1
44 (
.0 50
)* *
.8 65
− .0
54 (
.0 55
)* .9
46 −
.1 07
( .0
61 )*
.8 98
— —
— —
— —
.1 73
( .1
22 )
1. 18
9
Sc ho
o l R
ul es
×
La ti no
— —
.0 62
( .0
39 )†
1. 06
4 .0
40 (
.0 42
) 1.
04 1
.0 57
( .0
52 )
1. 05
8 —
— —
— —
— −
.0 54
( .0
89 )
.9 47
Sc
ho o l O
rd er
×
La ti no
— —
− .0
51 (
.0 20
)* *
0. 94
9 −
.0 08
( .0
23 )
.9 92
− .0
19 (
.0 26
) .9
80 —
— —
— —
— .0
44 (
.0 47
) 1.
04 5
Sc
ho o l
Pu ni
sh m
en t
×
La ti no
— —
1. 42
0 (. 14
0) **
* 4.
14 0
.8 47
( .1
61 )*
** 2.
33 2
.8 76
( .1
85 )*
** 2.
40 2
— —
— —
− .1
09 (
.3 32
) .8
96
St
ud en
t ch
ar ac
te ri
st ic
s
A
ch ie
ve m
en t
— —
— —
− .0
31 (
.0 07
)* **
.9 69
− .0
30 (
.0 07
)* **
.9 69
Ex pe
ct at
io ns
— —
— —
− .2
58 (
.0 45
)* **
.7 72
− .2
58 (
.0 46
)* **
.7 72
In vo
lv em
en t
— —
— —
− .3
07 (
.0 56
)* **
.7 34
− .3
01 (
.0 57
)* **
.7 39
V ic
ti m
iz at
io n
— —
— —
− .1
97 (
.1 34
) .8
20 −
.1 98
( .1
34 )
.8 19
M is
be ha
vi o r
— —
— —
.3 24
( .0
67 )*
** 1.
38 3
.3 24
( .0
68 )*
** 1.
38 3
Fa
m ily
c ha
ra ct
er is
ti cs
(c on
tin ue
d)
115
M o de
l 5 M
o de
l 6 M
o de
l 7 M
o de
l 8
b
(S E)
O R
b (S
E) O
R b
(S E)
O R
b (S
E) O
R
So ci
o ec
o no
m ic
st
at us
— —
— —
− .2
58 (
.1 10
)* .7
72 −
.2 60
( .1
12 )*
.7 70
St ru
ct ur
e —
— —
— −
.1 98
( .1
13 )†
.8 19
− .1
98 (
.1 17
)† .8
20
In
vo lv
em en
t —
— —
— −
.0 24
( .0
19 )*
.9 75
− .0
22 (
.0 19
)* .9
77 B
et w
ee n
sc ho
o ls
%
r ac
ia l a
nd
et hn
ic m
in o ri
ti es
— —
— —
.0 01
( .0
03 )
1. 00
1 .0
01 (
.0 03
) 1.
00 1
Po
ve rt
y —
— —
— .0
14 (
.0 04
)* **
1. 01
4 .0
13 (
.0 04
)* **
1. 01
3
Si ze
— —
— —
.0 01
( .0
01 )*
** 1.
00 1
.0 01
( .0
01 )*
** 1.
00 1
Se
cu ri
ty —
— —
— .0
08 (
.0 24
)† 1.
00 8
.0 07
( .0
24 )†
1. 00
7
Ph ys
ic al
d is
o rd
er —
— —
— −
.0 01
( .0
50 )
.9 98
− .0
01 (
.0 50
) .9
98
So ci
al d
is o rd
er —
— —
— .0
35 (
.0 42
) 1.
03 6
.0 36
( .0
42 )
1. 03
69
U rb
an —
— —
— .1
71 (
.1 48
) 1.
18 6
.1 70
( .1
48 )
1. 18
5
R ur
al —
— —
— .2
59 (
.1 57
)† 1.
29 6
.2 58
( .1
58 )†
1. 29
5 In
te rc
ep t
− 1.
83 5
(. 05
4) **
* −
1. 96
0 (. 05
9) **
* −
2. 19
0 (. 06
6) **
* −
2. 19
7 (. 06
6) **
*
V
ar ia
nc e
χ2 V
ar ia
nc e
χ2 V
ar ia
nc e
χ2 V
ar ia
nc e
χ2
R an
do m
e ffe
ct s
0. 26
36 2*
** 63
2. 47
7 0.
31 97
5* **
65 4.
50 6
0. 35
65 1*
** 65
0. 62
1 .3
56 **
* 64
9. 07
9
N ot
e. T
he o
m it te
d ca
te go
ri es
a re
W hi
te s
tu de
nt s
an d
st ud
en ts
w ho
w er
e no
t di
sc ip
lin ed
a nd
v ic
ti m
iz ed
, a nd
n o n-
ur ba
n sc
ho o ls
. O R
= o
dd s
ra ti o .
† p ≤
.1 . *
p ≤
.0 5.
* *p
≤ .0
1. *
** p ≤
.0 01
.
T a b
le 4
. (c
o n
ti n
u e d
)
116 Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 39(1)
SD = 0.31) counterparts. Latino boys (M = 11.63, SD = 2.77) report lower levels of perceived school order than White boys (M = 12.76, SD = 2.76). As for other student and characteristics for boys, Latino boys have relatively lower levels of achievement, expectations, involvement, and victimization as well as lower family socioeconomic status and less family involvement than White boys.
Punishing Latina Girls and Dropping Out
In the baseline model of Table 3, girls’ dropping out is regressed on students’ race and ethnicity. At this stage of this analysis for girls’ race and ethnicity, Latina girls (β = −2.177, p ≤ .001) are less likely to experience a dropout event than White girls.
In Model 2 of Table 3, girls’ dropping out is regressed on race and ethnic- ity, school justice and fairness, rules, order, and punishment. At this stage of this analysis for girls’ race and ethnicity, Latina girls (β = .496, p ≤ .05) are now more likely to experience a dropout event than White girls. Girls who perceive increased levels of school justice and fairness (β = −.175, p ≤ .001) and increased levels of school order (β = −.071, p ≤ .01) are less likely to experience a dropout event. However, girls who are punished (β = 1.538, p ≤ .001) are more likely to experience a dropout event.
In Model 3 of Table 3, student, family, and school control variables are added to the analyses. At this stage of this analysis for girls’ race and ethnic- ity, being Latina is no longer significantly associated with dropping out. Girls who perceive increased levels of school justice and fairness (β = −.175, p ≤ .001) are less likely to experience a dropout event. However, girls who are punished (β = .723, p ≤ .001) are more likely to experience a dropout event. For girls’ student characteristics, girls who have increased educational achievement (β = −.037, p ≤ .001), educational expectations (β = −.256, p ≤ .001), and school involvement (β = −.284, p ≤ .001) are less likely to experi- ence a dropout event; however, increased engagement in misbehavior at school increase the likelihood of girls’ dropping out (β = .422, p ≤ .001). For family characteristics, girls within families with increased socioeconomic status (β = −.519, p ≤ .001) and within families who are more involved (β = −.063, p ≤ .01) are less likely to experience a dropout event. For school char- acteristics, girls who attend schools with increased proportions of racial and ethnic minorities (β = .007, p ≤ .01), students who receive free or reduced lunch (β = .017, p ≤ .001), and those who attend urban schools (β = .179, p ≤ .1) are more likely to experience a dropout event.
In Model 4 of Table 3, interactions between race and ethnicity, school justice and fairness, rules, order, and punishment are now included in the
Peguero et al. 117
analysis. At this stage of this analysis for girls’ race and ethnicity, being Latina is still not significantly associated with dropping out. The main effect of perceptions of school justice and fairness (β = −.133, p ≤ .05) is signifi- cantly associated with a decreased likelihood of White girls’ dropping out. Because there is no statistically significant difference in the interactions between race and ethnicity and perceptions of school justice and fairness, this finding indicates that the perception of school justice and fairness also reduces the likelihood of dropping out for Latina girls. The main effect of school punishment (β = .854, p ≤ .001) is significantly associated with an increased likelihood of White girls to experience a dropout event. Because there is no statistically significant difference in the interactions of race and ethnicity and school punishment, this finding indicates that school punish- ment also contributes to the likelihood of dropping out for Latina girls. The relationships between female dropping out with student, family, and school characteristics remain similar as in Model 3 of this analysis.
Punishing Latino Boys and Dropping Out
In the baseline Model 5 of Table 4, boys’ dropping out is regressed on race and ethnicity. At this stage of this analysis, Latino boys (β = .675, p ≤ .001) are more likely to experience a dropout event than White boys.
In Model 6 of Table 4, boys’ dropping out is regressed on race and ethnic- ity, school justice and fairness, rules, order, and punishment. At this stage of this analysis for boys’ race and ethnicity, Latino boys (β = .491, p ≤ .01) are still more likely to experience a dropout event than White boys. Boys who have increased perceptions of school justice and fairness (β = −.144, p ≤ .01) and higher perceptions of school order (β = −.051, p ≤ .01) are less likely to drop out of school; however, boys who have heightened awareness of the school rules (β = .062, p ≤ .1) and are punished (β = 1.420, p ≤ .001) are more likely to experience a dropout event.
In Model 7 of Table 4, student, family, and school control variables are added to the analyses. At this stage of this analysis for boys’ race and ethnic- ity, Latino boys (β = .327, p ≤ .1) are more likely to experience a dropout event. Boys who have increased perceptions of school justice and fairness (β = −.054, p ≤ .05) are less likely to drop out of school; however, boys who are punished (β = 1.420, p ≤ .001) are more likely to experience a dropout event. For boys’ student characteristics, males who have increased educational achievement (β = −.031, p ≤ .001), educational expectations (β = −.258, p ≤ .001), and school involvement (β = −.307, p ≤ .001) are less likely to experi- ence a dropout event; however, boys who engage in misbehavior at school have an increased likelihood of dropping out (β = .324, p ≤ .001). For family
118 Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 39(1)
characteristics, boys within families with increased socioeconomic status (β = −.258, p ≤ .05), within two parent/guardian family structures (β = −.198, p ≤ .5), and within families who are more involved (β = −.024, p ≤ .05) are less likely to experience a dropout event. For school characteristics, as the proportion of students who receive free or reduced lunch increased within a school (β = .014, p ≤ .001) the likelihood of boys’ experiencing a droupoout event increased. Boys’ attending schools that are larger (β = .001, p ≤ .05), have higher levels of security (β = .008, p ≤ .1), and in rural areas (β = .259, p ≤ .1) have an increased likelihood of experiencing a dropout event.
In Model 8 of Table 4, interactions between race and ethnicity, school justice and fairness, rules, order, and punishment are now included in the analysis. At this stage of this analysis for boys’ race and ethnicity, being Latino is no longer significantly associated with dropping out. The main effect of perceptions of school justice and fairness (β = −.107, p ≤ .05) is significantly associated with a decreased likelihood of White boys’ dropping out. Because there is no statistically significant difference in the interactions between race and ethnicity and perceptions of school justice and fairness, this finding indicates that the perception of school justice and fairness also reduces the likelihood of dropping out for Latino boys. The main effect of school punishment (β = .876, p ≤ .001) is significantly associated with an increased likelihood of White boys to experience a dropout event. Because there is no statistically significant difference in the interactions of race and ethnicity and school punishment, this finding indicates that school punish- ment also contributes to the likelihood of dropping out for Latino boys. The relationships between boys dropping out with student, family, and school characteristics remain similar as in Model 7 of this analysis.
Discussion
The current study set out to address three research questions about the relation- ship between school procedural justice (i.e., perceptions of school justice and fairness, rules, and order), punishment (suspensions), and the likelihood of dropping out of high school for Latina/o and White girls and boys. First, are school procedural justice and punishment associated with the likelihood of dropping out for Latina/o students? The results do suggest that perceptions of school justice and fairness and punishment may contribute to the likelihood of dropping out of school. In general, it appears that school punishment indeed exacerbates the risk of dropping out while relatively stronger perceptions of school justice and fairness could insulate students from the risks associated with dropping out of school. Second, how does the intersection of gender, race, and ethnicity moderate the relationships between school procedural justice,
Peguero et al. 119
punishment, and dropping out? The findings clearly demonstrate gender, racial, and ethnic disparities associated with the relationship between school punish- ment, justice, and dropping out. This study reveals that particularly Latino boys are being marginalized because Latino boys report higher rates of punishment while indicating lower perceptions of their schools as just and fair. Third, could improving procedural justice be a way to moderate the likelihood of dropping out for Latina/o students? The results denote that increased perceptions of school justice and fairness could mitigate the likelihood of dropping out for Latina girls and Latino boys. Once school procedural justice and punishment were controlled for in this study’s analysis, the effect of being Latina/o was no longer associated with dropping out. In other words, school procedural justice and punishment are significant moderators if Latina/o youth will drop out from high school. The following will be a deeper analytical discussion about these gender, racial, and ethnic educational disparities as well as the implications, limitations, and future research associated with this study’s findings.
For students in this study, overall, being punished at school does appear to increase the probability of dropping out for both Latinas and Latinos. This finding is concerning given that past studies suggest that Latinas and Latinos are being disproportionately punished at school, although they are not misbe- having any more than their White counterparts (Crenshaw et al., 2015; Hirschfield, 2008; Kim et al., 2010; Peguero & Shekarkhar, 2011; Rios, 2011; Skiba et al., 2011). This illustrates the potential domino effect that begins with Latinas and Latinos being disproportionately punished at school. Given the increased likelihood of Latinas and Latinos being punished at school, the current finding that Latinas and Latinos both have higher rates of dropping out than their White counterparts is not surprising. Although disproportionate punishment is a hurdle to Latina/o students’ academic success, the current study finds a factor that can insulate or reduce Latina/o students’ academic pathways. Specifically, Latinas and Latinos who perceive a greater sense of justice and fairness in school are less likely to drop out. This finding is in line with past studies that suggest school punishment can be an effective tool of social control when used fairly (Kupchik, 2010; Kupchik & Ellis, 2008; Peguero & Bracy, 2015). It is interesting to note that Latinas in this sample have the highest ratings for perceived school justice and fairness compared with the entire male sample and White girls as well. Research denotes that Latinas can have increased support for academic success from school person- nel and from their parents (Feliciano, 2012). Other studies note that familial gendered socialization of Latina girls, which holds them to higher behavioral standards and places more responsibilities on them at home, leads to better commitment to school (Feliciano, 2012; López, 2003; Williams, Alvarez, & Hauck, 2002). It is possible that Latinas’ perceptions of school justice and
120 Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 39(1)
fairness are associated with increased support from teachers and familial gen- dered socialization. This finding should be investigated further to have a bet- ter understanding of why Latinas perceive more justice and fairness in school, despite their greater likelihood of being punished and dropping out.
With regard to gender in this study, the relationships between school jus- tice, punishment, and dropping out are similar for Latinas and Latinos. With regard to race and ethnicity, the relationships between these variables also appear to be similar for Latina/o students and White students in the sample. However, it is important to note that Latino boys in this sample have the high- est dropout rate, along with the lowest levels of perceived justice and fairness than the rest of the sample. In contrast, as mentioned above, Latinas have the highest level of perceive justice and fairness. These findings may suggest that Latino boys are being marginalized at school and that is influencing their perceptions of fairness and justness. Future research should try to investigate why these differences in perceptions exist between Latinos and Latinas, in an effort to increase the sense of fairness and justice among Latino boys.
The final analyses in this study find that perceived justice and fairness reduce the likelihood of dropping out for all youth in the study. Conversely, these analyses show that being punished at school increases the likelihood of dropping out for all youth in the study. In light of these findings, school pol- icy makers and administrators can try to reduce the overall dropout rate for students by increasing procedural justice within schools and finding alterna- tives to punishment for students who misbehave.
Limitations and Future Research
Although this study advances the research on school justice and dropping out for Latina/o youth, it is not without its limitations. First, more attention should be paid to qualitative investigations of within-school social and cul- tural climates and their importance for understanding the relationship between school discipline and dropout as well as the role of inequality. As indicated by prior research (Bondy, 2014; Cammarota, 2004; López, 2003; Portillos et al., 2012), youth outcomes are influenced by experiences with teachers, as well as perceptions of fair, biased, or preferential treatment influenced by gender, race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic class. Second, this study does not consider generational status a factor, which has been shown to influence outcomes such as school punishment and misbehavior (Peguero & Shekarkhar, 2011). Third, this study does not take neighborhood influences into account. Numerous studies have suggested that certain neighborhood characteristics can act as protective or aggravating factors with regard to youth outcomes (Hirschfield, 2008; Kupchik, 2010; Portillos et al., 2012; Rios, 2011). Fourth,
Peguero et al. 121
with regard to student misbehavior and punishment, this study does not dif- ferentiate between the types of infractions students are committing or what type of punishment students are receiving. Future research should take a close look at whether the type of misbehavior that leads students to be pun- ished is influencing their dropout rates (directly or indirectly) and whether a specific type of punishment received also influences dropping out. It is important to note that prior research suggests that Latina/o and Black stu- dents are more likely to be punished in school for subjective offenses such as disrespect, compared with their White counterparts who tend to be punished for more “objective” or clear misbehavior offenses such as smoking (Cregor & Hewitt, 2011). It is possible that students who are most likely to drop out received the harshest form of punishment or committed the most severe infractions, which have more serious implications for their future than less severe punishments and infractions.
Conclusion
This study set out to investigate the relationship between school justice, fair- ness, order, and dropping out for Latina/o youth in the U.S. public school system. The importance of studying this relationship is highlighted by a recent finding by the Children’s Defense Fund (2015) that every 30 seconds, a Latino high school student drops out. In line with prior research, the find- ings show that school punishment influences dropping out of school for Latina/o youth. The findings also suggest that improving perceived school justice and fairness may help reduce this population’s risk of dropping out. These findings beg the question, then, “How do we address this situation?” One possibility is to evaluate how well recent efforts to address disparities in schools are being implemented. These strategies include restorative justice efforts in schools and behavioral interventions at school, as a way to curtail the school-to-prison pipeline (Castillo, 2013-2014). A second strategy should be to continue identifying the barriers and hurdles that are interrupting the paths to educational success for racial and ethnic minority youth. With the increasing number of Latina/o students in the U.S. public school system, it is imperative to address the educational inequities as well as disparate treatment many Latina/o youth experience daily in the schools that they attend.
Acknowledgments
Gratitude is extended for the helpful comments and constructive suggestions from the editor and blind reviewers throughout the development of this research article. Appreciation is conveyed for the support offered by the Racial Democracy, Crime and Justice-Network (RDCJ-N).
122 Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 39(1)
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by the National Institute of Justice W.E.B. Du Bois Fellowship (Grant 2012-IJ-CX-0003).
References
Arcia, E. (2007). A comparison of elementary/K-8 and middle schools’ suspension rates. Urban Education, 42, 456-469.
Bondy, J. M. (2014). “Why do I have to pledge the U.S. flag? It’s not my country!” Latina youths rearticulating citizenship and national belonging. Multicultural Perspectives, 16, 193-202.
Bondy, J. M. (2015). Hybrid citizenship: Latina youth and the politics of belonging. The High School Journal, 98, 353-373.
Bondy, J. M. (2016). Latina youth, education, and citizenship: A feminist transna- tional analysis. Theory and Research in Social Education, 44, 212-243.
Bondy, J. M., Peguero, A. A., & Johnson, B. E.. (In press). The children of immigrants’ academic self-efficacy: The significance of gender, race, ethnicity, and segmented assimilation. Education & Urban Society. doi: 10.1177/0013124516644049
Brown, B., & Benedict, W. R. (2005). Classroom cops, what do the students think? A case study of student perceptions of school police and security officers con- ducted in an Hispanic community. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 7, 264-285.
Cammarota, J. (2004). The gendered and racialized pathways of Latina and Latino youth: Different struggles, different resistances in the urban context. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 35, 53-74.
Castillo, J. (2013-2014). Tolerance in schools for Latino students: Dismantling the school to prison pipeline. The Harvard Journal of Hispanic Policy, 26, 43-58.
Cataldi, E. F., Laird, J., & KewalRamani, A. (2009). High school dropout and com- pletion rates in the United States: 2007 (NCES 2009-064). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Children’s Defense Fund. (2015). Moments in America for Hispanic children. Retrieved from http://www.childrensdefense.org/library/moments/moments-in- america-for-latino-children.html
Cólon, Y., & Sánchez, B. (2010). Explaining the gender disparity in Latino youth’s education: Acculturation and economic value of education. Urban Education, 45, 252-273.
Cooper, K. S. (2013). Safe, affirming, and productive spaces: Classroom engagement among Latina high school students. Urban Education, 48, 490-528.
Peguero et al. 123
Cregor, M., & Hewitt, D. (2011). Dismantling the school-to-prison pipeline: A survey from the field. Poverty & Race, 20, 5-7.
Crenshaw, K. W., Ocen, P., & Nanda, J. (2015). Black girls matter: Pushed out, over- policed, and underprotected. New York, NY: Center for Intersectionality and Social Policy Studies, Columbia University Law School.
Denner, J., & Guzman, B. (2006). Latina girls: Voices of adolescent strength in the U.S. New York: New York University Press.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: Macmillan.
Feliciano, C. (2012). The female educational advantage among adolescent children of immigrants. Youth & Society, 44, 431-449.
Gándara, P. (2015). Fulfilling America’s future: Latinas in the U.S., 2015. Civil Rights Project and the White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanics. Washington, DC.
Gándara, P., & Contreras, F. (2009). The Latino education crisis: The consequences of failed social policies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gregory, A., Skiba, R. J., & Noguera, P. A. (2010). The achievement gap and the discipline gap: Two sides of the same coin? Educational Researcher, 39, 59-68.
Hill, N. E., & Torres, K. (2010). Negotiating the American dream: The paradox of aspirations and achievement among Latino students and engagement between their families and schools. Journal of Social Issues, 66, 95-112.
Hirschfield, P. (2008). Preparing for prison? The criminalization of school discipline in the USA. Theoretical Criminology, 12, 79-101.
Ingels, S. J., Pratt, D. J., Wilson, D., Burns, L. J., Currivan, D., Rogers, J. E., & Hubbard-Bednasz, S. (2007). Education longitudinal study of 2002: Base-year to second follow-up data file documentation (NCES 2008-347). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
Kim, C. Y., Losen, D. J., & Hewitt, D. T. (2010). The school-to-prison pipeline: Structuring legal reform. New York: New York University Press.
Kozol, J. (2006). The shame of the nation: The restoration of apartheid schooling in America. New York, NY: Three Rivers Press.
Kozol, J. (2012). Savage inequalities: Children in America’s schools. New York, NY: Broadway Books.
Kupchik, A. (2010). Homeroom security: School discipline in an age of fear. New York, NY: New York University Press.
Kupchik, A., & Ellis, N. (2008). School discipline and security: Fair for all students? Youth & Society, 39, 549-574.
López, N. (2003). Hopeful girls, troubled boys: Race and gender disparity in urban education. New York, NY: Routledge.
Luna, N., & Revilla, A. T. (2013). Understanding Latina/o school pushout: Experiences of students who left school before graduating. Journal of Latinos and Education, 12, 22-37.
Mena, J. A. (2011). Latino parent home-based practices that bolster student academic persistence. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 33, 490-506.
124 Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 39(1)
Niehaus, K., Rudasill, K., & Adelson, J. L. (2012). Self-efficacy, intrinsic motivation, and academic outcomes among Latino middle school students participating in an after-school program. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 34, 118-136.
Noguera, P. A. (2008). The trouble with Black boys: And other reflections on race, equity, and the future of public education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Pantoja, A. (2013). Reframing the school-to-prison pipeline: The experiences of Latin@ youth and families. Association of Mexican American Educators Journal, 7, 17-31.
Pasco, L., & Lopez, V. (In press) . The Latina penalty: Juvenile correctional attitudes toward the Latina juvenile offender. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/15377938.2015.1015196
Peguero, A. A., & Bondy, J. M. (2015). Schools, justice, and immigrant students: Assimilation, race, ethnicity, gender, and perceptions of fairness and order. Teachers College Record, 117, 1-42.
Peguero, A. A., & Bracy, N. L. (2015). School order, justice, and education: Climate, discipline practices, and dropping out. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 25, 412-426.
Peguero, A. A., Portillos, E. L., & González, J. C. (2015). School securitization and Latina/o educational progress. Urban Education, 50, 812-838.
Peguero, A. A., & Shekarkhar, Z. (2011). Latino/a student misbehavior and school punishment. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 33, 54-70.
Portillos, E. L., González, J. C., & Peguero, A. A. (2012). Crime control strategies in school: Chicanos/as perceptions and criminalization. The Urban Review, 44, 171-188.
Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S., & Congdon, R. T. (2008). Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
Reyes, A. (2006). Discipline, achievement, and race: Is zero tolerance the answer? Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. .
Rios, V. M. (2011). Punished: Policing the lives of Black and Latino boys. New York: New York University Press.
Rodríguez, L. F. (2014). The time is now: Understanding and responding to the Black and Latina/o dropout crisis in the U.S. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Rumberger, R. W. (2011). Dropping out: Why students dropout of high school and what can be done about it. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Skiba, R. J., Horner, R. H., Chung, C. G., & Rausch, M. K. (2011). Race is not neu- tral: A national investigation of African American and Latino disproportionality in school discipline. School Psychology Review, 40, 85-107.
Stearns, E., & Glennie, E. (2006). When and why dropouts leave high school. Youth & Society, 38, 29-57.
Tyler, J. H., & Lofstrom, M. (2009). Finishing high school: Alternative pathways and dropout recovery. The Future of Children, 19, 77-103.
Urbina, M. G., & Wright, C. R. (2015). Latino access to higher education: Ethnic realities and new directions for the twenty-first century. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
Peguero et al. 125
Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S.-Mexican youth and the politics of caring. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Williams, L. S., Alvarez, S. D., & Hauck, K. S. (2002). My name is not María: Young Latinas seeking home in the heartland. Social Problems, 49, 563-584.
Author Biographies
Anthony A. Peguero is an associate professor of sociology and research affiliate of the Center for Peace Studies and Violence Prevention at Virginia Tech. His research interests involve youth violence, socialization and marginalization, schools, and the adaptation of the children immigrants. He is also a National Institute Justice W.E.B. Du Bois Fellow, 2015 Virginia Tech Institute for Society, Culture and Environment (ISCE) Fellow, 2014 Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences Tory J. Caeti Outstanding Young Scholar Award Winner, 2013 American Society of Criminology Coramae Richey Mann Award Winner, and member of the Racial Democracy, Crime, and Justice Network which holds the dual goals of advancing research on the intersection of race, crime and justice and of promoting racial democracy within the study of these issues by supporting junior scholars from under-represented groups.
Jennifer M. Bondy is an assistant professor in the School of Education and a fellow in the Women’s and Gender Stuides program at Virginia Tech. Her research interests include: gender, immigration, and education; transnationalism and cultural citizen- ship; and, educational equity. She has published in journals such as Race, Ethnicity and Education, and Teachers College Record.
Zahra Shekarkhar is an assistant professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at Fayetteville State University. She received her doctorate in criminology from the University of Florida in 2015. Her research focuses on the educational and behavioral outcomes of youth across immigrant generation, gender, race, and ethinicity.
