The discourse surrounding school safety in the public sphere has long been a point of contention. Currently, a palpable tension exists between the numerous interest groups in this conversation. This conversation is one where political pundits, law enforcement, educators, and parents dispute the role police officers should play in schools, and the level to which specific forms of penalization should be used given the effects on youth.

For more than 20 years, policies of both government and schools in various U.S. and Canadian regions encouraged — and sometimes enforced — the utilization of police and tough penalties in schools. This included partnerships between schools and local police precincts and the adoption of “zero tolerance” discipline. Many argue these practices contributed to forms of institutional racism. The clearest example of this is what’s often called the “school-to-prison pipeline.”

The school-to-prison pipeline is a sociological concept that describes disciplinary policies and practices (such as suspension, expulsion, or referrals to the police) which remove students in K-12 schools from the classroom. This increases their risk for contact with law enforcement and simultaneously increases the probability of student incarceration and negative life outcomes.

The concept of the school-to-prison pipeline infers a sense of directionality, meaning the direct consequence of disciplinary school policies is prison. But here’s the catch: the phrase “pipeline” suggests a straight path from school discipline to prison. In reality, the process is more complicated. Harsh discipline does not doom every student to incarceration — but it does create downward pressure that increases risks of dropping out, police contact, and long-term disadvantage. Despite being an understudied area, much of the literature suggests Black and racialized youth are most impacted by this downward pressure.

In the last five years, many schools divested from police culture given public pressure and studies of how it fueled anti-Black racism. Yet, today, a shift is taking place. This shift looks to reintegrate police and stiff penalties into schools under the mantle of public safety. For some, this shift is a restorative measure given their initial displeasure with the removal of police from schools and the divestment from police culture. For others, this presents a troubling step backwards — one that signals the devaluation of Black and racialized experiences and the perpetuation of the pipeline.

Given this shift, I use this piece to unpack the roots and components of the school-to-prison pipeline to understand its effects. Overall, I find that stiffer penalties in schools indeed disproportionately impact Black and racialized students, but the consequences of stiffer penalties do not lead to a linear downward spiral for students. Instead, it increases the chances of students who are more likely to exhibit problematic behaviours coming into contact with law enforcement and the criminal justice system.

How Zero Tolerance Took Hold

The concept of the school-to-prison pipeline has several components that, when analyzed cohesively, create a series of effects that negatively impact students who are disciplined. At large, this includes zero tolerance policies which encompass out-of-school suspensions, expulsions, and increased collaboration between schools and local authorities.

In 1971, when President Richard Nixon inferred a “war on drugs,” society experienced a material shift in crime prevention tactics. This resulted in a “tough on crime” approach, where proactive interrogation tactics to identify criminals and elevated aggression were used to take criminals and drug addicts off the street. Simultaneously, scholars have suggested that there was also a material shift in school discipline. So, the criminalization of social problems mirrored the criminalization of school discipline.

At the time, this was a popular political stance given the unstable economic and social conditions in the inner cities. This is because violent crime rates for youth increased from the mid-1980s to 1994 among racialized inner-city youth. When considering the rise in violent crime during this period in combination with a series of school mass shootings, lawmakers decided to pass a series of harsh laws to deter youth crime. This came in the form of zero tolerance policies.

“Zero tolerance” as a political term was first used to describe an approach to federal drug policy. The idea was that not tolerating or seeking to understand undesirable behaviour — regardless of social context or how minor it is — would serve as a deterrent. The concept was first introduced in 1986 when a San Diego attorney used it to describe the federal practice of seizing any seagoing vessel that carried drugs. Two years later, in 1988, the model was expanded to allow any vehicle crossing the U.S. border to be seized, with the occupants being charged in federal court. Being perceived as effective policy, the scope of zero tolerance quickly expanded to include other areas, specifically quality-of-life offenses. The effect in places like New York City was that any form of suspected anti-social behaviour led to swift arrests to manage and prevent disorder.

With respect to education, the tough-on-crime approach crossed over with the introduction of the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994. Prior to its entering into force, some states had already prohibited behaviours related to guns and drugs. However, the Act standardized the national practice of zero tolerance in schools, mandating punishments for gun and drug possession on school grounds, with some districts furthering its application to anti-social behaviour.

To enforce zero tolerance policies, there was an increase in security and surveillance measures in schools. That included security personnel, cameras, metal detectors, locker checks, and law enforcement. Along these lines, a 2011 report from the Justice Policy Institute found that the presence of security guards increased by 27 percent between 1999 and 2007. School Resource Officers (SROs) also became part of the increase in law enforcement in schools. The dramatic growth in the number of SROs was supported by the allocation of $68 million through the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) In Schools Program. The COPS In Schools Program led to the hiring of 599 SROs in 289 communities in 2000, which fostered a continued growth in SROs from 9,446 in 1997 to an all-time high of 14,337 in 2003.

Because the federal government provided districts with funds, the Act was used to implement conditions for federal funding. More specifically, it required states to pass laws that compelled schools to expel students for at least one year for bringing a firearm to school. It further required their referral to the criminal justice system.

From a personal perspective, I do not consider this extreme considering the punishment relates to a firearm. However, what is problematic is what the spirit of the policy promoted: an overreliance on the police. As a result, many states implemented policies that required referral of students to law enforcement for non-weapon-related offences. This is troubling because it is the crux of the school-to-prison pipeline. When non-firearm-related offences such as fighting, possession of drugs (in most cases marijuana) or alcohol, absenteeism, or classroom behaviour are referred to the police, it criminalizes the school environment and behaviour that could otherwise be addressed by school administration. It forces an early introduction to the criminal justice system that can tie individuals up for years while disrupting their potential.

Effect of Zero Tolerance in Relation to the School-to-Prison Pipeline

Much of the literature in this area is qualitative in nature. Still, some conclusions can be drawn.

The first conclusion is that there is no evidence that zero tolerance policies have made schools safer. In fact, qualitative studies mutually agree that these policies have pushed students out of schools and into the hands of law enforcement. This is because police officers’ regular presence at a school is predictive of greater odds that school officials refer students to law enforcement for various (minor) offenses. As a result, the presence of police officers at schools due to zero tolerance policies is not a direct deterrent; instead, it functions as a crutch overused by school administration when they are ill-equipped to deal with any form of violent or anti-social behaviour.

Another takeaway from the research is that although the concept of the school-to-prison pipeline infers directionality, the process from school exclusion to juvenile detention or criminalization is not linear. The idea of a pipeline is too neat. Not every suspended or expelled student ends up in prison. But exclusionary discipline raises the odds of dropping out, losing educational opportunities, and eventually interacting with the justice system. In that sense, it creates downward pressure that weighs most heavily on Black and racialized students.

Final Thoughts

Zero tolerance policies promised safer schools but delivered the opposite for many students. Rather than a clear pipeline, what exists is a system of downward pressure: a series of policies and practices that disproportionately affect Black and racialized youth, push some students out of the classroom, and increase their chances of contact with the justice system. Not every student who faces harsh discipline ends up in prison, but the cumulative effect creates barriers that make success harder to achieve.

Understanding this shift from “pipeline” to downward pressure is crucial. It challenges us to rethink what safety means in schools and whose experiences are centered in that conversation. Ultimately, schools have the power to either lift students up or push them down — and the choice shapes the future of an entire generation.