There is growing concern that suspensions trigger a ''downward spiral,'' redirecting children's trajectories away from school success and toward police contact. The current study tests this possibility, analyzing whether and in what ways childhood suspensions increase children's risk for juvenile arrests. Combining 15 years of data from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study with contextual information on neighborhoods and schools, I find that suspensions disproportionately affect children already enduring considerable adversity. Even so, suspensions appear to redirect children's trajectories, more than doubling their risk of arrest. Although suspended children experienced greater escalations in behavioral problems than their peers, post-suspension behavioral changes explained relatively little of the association between early suspension and later arrest. Instead, the most consequential way suspended children diverged from their peers was their heightened risk for repeated school sanction. Suspended children's risk for repeated school removal explained 52 percent of the association between childhood suspension and juvenile arrest.

No abstract

Although gender is central to contemporary accounts of educational stratification, sexuality has been largely invisible as a population-level axis of academic inequality. Taking advantage of major recent data expansions, the current study establishes sexuality as a core dimension of educational stratification in the United States. First, I analyze lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) adults’ college completion rates: overall, by race/ethnicity, and by birth cohort. Then, using new data from the High School Longitudinal Survey of 2009, I analyze LGB students’ performance on a full range of achievement and attainment measures. Across analyses, I reveal two demographic facts. First, women’s rising academic advantages are largely confined to straight women: although lesbian women historically outpaced straight women, in contemporary cohorts, lesbian and bisexual women face significant academic disadvantages. Second, boys’ well-documented underperformance obscures one group with remarkably high levels of school success: gay boys. Given these facts, I propose that marginalization from hegemonic gender norms has important—but asymmetric—impacts on men’s and women’s academic success. To illustrate this point, I apply what I call a “gender predictive” approach, using supervised machine learning methods to uncover patterns of inequality otherwise obscured by the binary sex/gender measures typically available in population research.

Sexual minorities’ risk for exclusionary discipline is a commonly cited indicator of the challenges that these students face. The current study addresses this issue by introducing a new data source for research on sexual minority students: the Fragile Families and Childhood Wellbeing Study. In this geographically diverse, population-based sample, I find that sexual minorities continue to face higher rates of discipline than their peers. However, this risk is highly stratified by sex: Same-sex attraction is associated with 95% higher odds of discipline among girls but no apparent discipline risk among boys. Sexual minority girls’ risk for discipline is only partially mediated by behavior, a result that is plausibly consistent with the interpretation that these students continue to face discriminatory treatment in schools.

No abstract