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: anthony.peguero@vt.edu

679633HJBXXX10.1177/0739986316679633Hispanic Journal of Behavioral SciencesPeguero et al.
research-article2016

mailto:anthony.peguero@vt.edu

https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/journals-permissions

https://doi.org/10.1177/0739986316679633

https://journals.sagepub.com/home/hjb

Peguero et al. 9

9

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 code

d)

, (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

9

6

(

.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

0

9
−

.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

7

7

Sc
ho

o
l P

un
is

h

m
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

9

9

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

i

o
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

9

7
−

.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

9

5

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.

http://www.childrensdefense.org/library/moments/moments-in-america-for-latino-children.html

http://www.childrensdefense.org/library/moments/moments-in-america-for-latino-children.html

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.