A Comparison Study Of The Policies And Procedures between A Juvenile Justice Facility And A Public High School
Open Access
- Graduate Program:
- Educational Leadership
- Degree:
- Doctor of Philosophy
- Document Type:
- Dissertation
- Date of Defense:
- February 25, 2016
- Committee Members:
- Jacqueline A Stefkovich, Dissertation Advisor
- Jacqueline A Stefkovich, Committee Chair
- Maria M Lewis, Committee Member
- Edward J Fuller, Committee Member
- John Henry Kramer, Committee Member
- Dr Anthony Normore, Special Member
- Keywords:
- high school
- juvenile facility
- race
- policies
- procedures
- organizations
- practice
- and discipline
- Abstract:
- This case study examined the use of informal and formal protocols by two different institutions, a public high school and a juvenile justice facility. Examining the similarities and differences in the use of both types of protocols in these institutions could provide insight into the school-to-prison pipeline that plagues at-risk youth. Literature that examines the labeling of at-risk youth, especially African American, Hispanic/Latino, and Native American boys, sheds light on problematic zero tolerance policies that were put in place during the 1990s and early 2000s to curb perceived school violence by males. These procedures are part of the greater policy set that helps guide and direct these organizations toward achieving their institutional mission. During this study, it was found that an Ohio public high school and a juvenile justice facility share many similar informal and formal protocols, especially with regard to these institutions’ dependents, namely, students and juvenile delinquents. However, numerous policies also differ between the two institutions, many of which are related to their unique missions and goals. Using interviews, observations, and literature, this research examined the most common issues arising from the use of informal and formal protocols, as well as their daily impact on the institutional missions of both the public school and the juvenile facility. Second, the implications for policy and practice in both institutions are provided, focusing on key points found in the study’s data and the education leadership literature. Finally, possibilities for future research are explored with an emphasis on discipline, race, gender, education, and time.