Child discipline in the schools (school discipline) has become less about reinforcing positive behaviors and more about kicking students out of school, and ultimately pushing them toward the “justice” system. In the early 1990’s, with the adoption of the Gun Free School Act, and No Child Left Behind of the early 2000’s, schools began to take a much different approach than they had in previous years disciplining students. The Gun Free School Act states ”Each State receiving Federal funds under any title of this Act shall have in effect a State law requiring local educational agencies to expel from school for a period of not less than 1 year a student who is determined to have brought a firearm to a school, or to have possessed a firearm at a school…” (U.S. Department of Education, 2004) and No Child Left Behind (NCLB) mandates, “that all students in a school must be “proficient” by the 2013/2014 school year.” (Chen, 2015) Lawmakers had good intentions when introducing these laws. Children were in danger at school from those looking to do them harm and from the failing school systems itself. Good intentions, however, led to bad decisions by those trying to implement these laws. New policies were put into place that changed the school environment, and how administrators disciplined. These laws, in effect, caused schools to become more like prisons, where they implemented strategies akin to visiting a correctional facility, than educational facilities that train children for work and adult life. Schools brought in police officers, metal detectors and wands to begin cracking down on school violence- such as school shootings like those of Columbine High and the many others to follow, but they also took on the task of disciplining those referred for minor infractions. Children should be disciplined, but they deserve the chance to grow from their mistakes. Children do not deserve to have lifelong impacts of childhood mischief.
With the implementation of the laws, many schools adopted a zero-tolerance policy that led to exclusionary style discipline and got away from the more restorative approaches that allow children to learn from their mistakes and make corrective actions to improve their behaviors. “Exclusionary discipline describes any type of school disciplinary action that removes or excludes a student from his or her usual educational setting” (Exclusionary Discipline, n.d.) Schools are no longer concerned with discipline that corrects student behavior, instead children are being treated like adults and being made to live with their childhood blunders for a lifetime with the new and improved zero tolerance stance the schools have taken. Zero tolerance is described as “school discipline policies and practices that mandate predetermined consequences, typically severe, punitive and exclusionary (e.g., out of school suspension and expulsion), in response to specific types of student misbehavior—regardless of the context or rationale for the behavior.” (Zero Tolerance, n.d.) The problem now is that every infraction qualifies: from perceived disrespect to administrative staff and teachers to fighting and carrying weapons. These behaviors extend from the lower level to the highest level. Zero tolerance is impacting children that prior to would not have been labeled rebellious or misfits. Additionally, almost every school in the Unites States has implemented School Resource Officers (SROs) to handle disciplinary action, and they are turning the children over to the juvenile justice system. Even those minor infractions that were once handled by the school’s administrative staff, such as fighting, have been outsourced to the SROs and children are ending up with criminal records.
Discipline in schools has changed, and more often poor, disabled and under-represented populations (Black and Latino children) are often highlighted as the “troubled child.” Unfortunately, the new policies are disproportionately impacting children who lack resources. These Black and Latino children are the ones who suffers most from the “discipline gap”, or “unequal punishments to different groups of students.” (Resmovits, 2013) Zero tolerance in schools should not have a color, race or ethnicity assigned to it, but many times it does. Zero tolerance in schools is breeding failure in communities with lower socio-economic status and forcing kids out of school and into a prison system. Between 2009 and 2010, 24 percent of Black students were suspended from school while only 7.1 percent of their white counterparts had been suspended. This does not mean that black children are more violent or disrespectful, but implicit (indirect/hidden) bias has played a major role in targeting the black children. Per the Seattle Post Intelligencer Reporter, Rebekah Denn, in her article “Blacks are disciplined at far higher rates than other students”-regardless of the contributing factors (socioeconomic status, living in a non-traditional home setting, being in a special education class, being an immigrant or living in poverty) black children were still 2.6 times more likely than other students to be expelled or suspended even after factoring out the effects of their condition or situation. These results are true in Seattle and around the nation. In the state of Rhode Island the numbers are staggeringly much higher. If you are a black child in the elementary school system, where you only make up nine percent of the children in the system, you are six times more likely to be suspended or expelled. “Between 2004-2012, 17,000 suspensions were issued in the state’s elementary schools,” and black children received 28 percent of those. (Townes, 2015) These numbers follow the children into high school where they eventually are forced out of school by dropping out due to disengagement or by referral to the juvenile justice system. Think Progress states,
“These disciplinary patterns set the stage for a racially uneven justice system in the state. Black males in the state are 9.3 times more likely than their white counterparts to spend time in juvenile detention. When looking at Rhode Island’s black population, there were 331.8 black arrests per 1,000 residents compared to just 36.3 non-black arrests. In 2010 alone, 30 percent of the state’s prison system was black, even though black people only constitute 6 percent of the general population.” (Townes, 2015)
Black and Latino children are being targeted by these laws. The behaviors they exhibit are no different from those of their white counterparts, but teachers are not aware of the cultural differences of their students and expect that all children should behave in the same “white” fashion. An example given by NPR shows exactly the type of behavior that teachers punish because they don’t understand the different cultures of their students. The example is of a Hispanic child being disciplined more because while being disciplined he didn’t look his teacher in the eyes, so in effect he was being disrespectful toward his teacher. The Hispanic culture is that you do not look in the eyes of an adult while being reprimanded because that is disrespect. Cultural differences play a major part in how and why these children are disciplined, in addition to the many other factors. (Donovan, J. (Host), 2012) They are being kicked out of school and the statistics show that they are more likely to become involved in criminal behavior, or teenage mischief, and end up in a correctional facility.
Although each of these policies were put in place to provide children with a safer, and more enhanced learning environment, it is unfortunate that not all children have a chance to benefit from these policies in a positive way. Children, those who are deemed a misfit, are being thrown out of school for minor infractions and missing valuable learning time. Zero tolerance, in this way, helps supporters of NCLB to meet its objectives of high stakes testing by dismissing those students they see as troubled and unteachable. Although NCLB was put in place to see that schools are meeting objectives and children are learning the material, the consequences attached to the failing schools has caused them to manipulate test scores in ways that involve removing children out of schools. Per the Advancement Project,
“Because of the focus on test scores and the severe consequences attached to them, if a student acts up in class, it is no longer in educators’ self-interest to address it by assessing the student’s unmet needs or treating the incident as a “teachable moment.” Within this business model, it is much easier and more “efficient” to simply remove the child from class through punitive disciplinary measures and focus on the remaining students. With so much riding on these tests, being able to transmit as much of the test material as possible often overrides concerns about the impact such practices have on students. As a result, the practice of pushing struggling students out of school to boost test scores has become quite common. There are a number of widely used strategies for manipulating test scores, such as withdrawing students from attendance rolls, assigning students to alternative schools, coercing or encouraging students to drop out or enroll in General Educational Development (GED) programs, along with using suspensions, expulsions, and referrals to alternative school.” (Advancement Project, 2010)
Excluding these children from the opportunity to learn will have a huge impact on the entire nation economically. Per the Civil Rights Project in a study conducted in Texas, “The delayed workforce entry related to grade retention has an effect of over $68 million for the state, including $5.6 million in lost tax revenue. Given the higher discipline rate for minorities, these costs disproportionately affect them….” (Marchblanks, M.P & Blake, J.J. & Booth, E.A. & Carmichael, D. & Seibert, A.L. & Fabelor, T., 2013) Unfortunately, these numbers are representative of many states in the United States. By removing these children from educational platforms through expulsion and suspensions we are removing a large sum of Americans out of the economic population because they are unable to obtain work. Children who are repeatedly suspended or expelled do not have the basic skill of reading or writing. When you cannot read, or write it is nearly impossible to apply for or obtain a job. A new way of disciplining students must be developed as the old way does not work. There must be a way to increase the graduation rate among black and Latino student and decrease the dropout rates. As mentioned in the Civil Rights Project, “school discipline relates to a 29% increase in high school dropout. These additional dropouts account for an economic effect of $711 million per year.” It is costing the states more money to keep children out of school than it cost to educate or retain them.
So, what are the alternatives? How do we keep children in school who may be misbehaving and give them the opportunity to continue with their education while keeping order in the school? What other approaches could the schools take that would keep the risk of drop-outs low and ultimately improve the economic status of many of the minorities who are impacted by these “get tough” approaches? There have been suggestions on how to strategically change how disciplined is handled in schools. Studies have been conducted by the government for the past 10 years and many of these approaches work, it is now time to implement them. The first recommendation is to “reserve zero tolerance disciplinary removals for only the most serious and severe of disruptive behaviors, and define those behaviors explicitly.” (Skiba) Having a definitive definition of what behaviors would qualify a child for suspension or expulsion allows the child to make a better-informed decision as to whether they will engage in that behavior. Not knowing what behavior qualifies as severe leaves too much of a gap for teachers to refer for any and everything. The second recommendation is to “replace one-size-fits-all disciplinary strategies with graduated systems of discipline, wherein consequences are geared to the seriousness of the infraction.” (Skiba) This would mean to implement other strategies for different behaviors. Children could serve in-school suspensions, do community service, clean up the school, recommend counseling for the child and even involve the parent to help resolve the behavior. The third recommendation is to “define all infractions, where major or minor, carefully.” (Skiba) Having clear defined infractions takes away the opportunity of bias from the teachers. It doesn’t necessarily withdraw bias in reporting the activity itself, but it will take away the bias as to what behaviors require disciplinary action and what behaviors do not. The fourth recommendation is to “expand the array of options available to schools for dealing with disruptive or violent behaviors.” (Skiba) Many schools are not aware of more effective options for deterring behaviors. Implementing more school psychologist and counselors to help develop alternative approaches to discipline would help to reduce the number of SROs needed in schools and improve the school’s climate.
There are many more options to help change the atmosphere of schools and improve the disciplinary approaches the schools have taken that do not work. Restorative approaches to misbehavior would benefit our children, our schools and ultimately our society as the zero-tolerance stance is not working. Children need discipline for growth. Corrective actions help one to know what they are doing wrong and make improvements and zero tolerance does not give a child that opportunity. These children have a right to an education and zero tolerance style discipline strips that away from them. It’s time to remove zero tolerance and School Resource Officers and instead fund more guidance counselors that bring solutions to behavioral disruption in the classroom.
Bibliography
Advancement Project. (2010, March). Test, Punish, and Push Out: How “Zero Tolerance” and High-Stakes Testing Funnel Youth into the School-To-Prison Pipeline. Retrieved from http://b.3cdn.net/advancement/d05cb2181a4545db07_r2im6caqe.pdf
Chen, G. (2015, March 3). Public School Review. Retrieved from Understanding No Child Left Behind: http://www.publicschoolreview.com/blog/understanding-no-child-left-behind
Denn, R. (2002, March 14). Blacks are disciplined at far higher rates than other students. Retrieved from seattle pi: http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Blacks-are-disciplined-at-far-higher-rates-than-1082691.php
Donovan, J. (Host). (2012, March 12). Black Students More Likely To Be Disciplined. Retrieved from NPR: http://www.npr.org/2012/03/12/148460543/black-students-more-likely-to-be-disciplined
Exclusionary Discipline. (n.d.). Retrieved from National Clearinghouse on Supportive School Discipline: http://supportiveschooldiscipline.org/learn/reference-guides/exclusionary-discipline
Lewis, C. W. (2010). African American Male Discipline Patterns and School District Responses Resulting Impact on Academic Achievement: Implications for Urban Educators and Policy Makers. Journal of African American Males in Educaion, 1(1), 1-19. Retrieved from http://journalofafricanamericanmales.com/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2010/03/African-American-Male-Discipline-Patterns1.pdf
Marchblanks, M. &. (2013, April 6). The Economic Effects of Exclusionary Discipline on Grade Retention and High School Dropout . Retrieved from The Civil Rights Project: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/7zc0c135#page-1
Resmovits, J. (2013, April 4). School ‘Discipline Gap’ Explodes as 1 in 4 Black Students Suspended, Report Finds. Retrieved from The Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/08/school-discipline-gap-_n_3040376.html
Skiba, R. &. (n.d.). Children’s Needs III: Development, Prevention, Intervention. Retrieved from http://www.indiana.edu/~equity/docs/Alternatives_to_Expulsion.pdf
Townes, C. (2015, February 20). Black Primary School Students In Rhode Island Are 6x More Likely To Be Suspended Than White Peers. Retrieved from Think Progress: https://thinkprogress.org/black-primary-school-students-in-rhode-island-are-6x-more-likely-to-be-suspended-than-white-peers-69f762f8fbcf#.95imlbdpl
U.S. Department of Education. (2004, September 15). Retrieved from Laws & Guidance/ Elemantary & Post Secondary Education: http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg54.html
Zero Tolerance. (n.d.). Retrieved from National Clearinghouse on Supportive School Discipline: http://supportiveschooldiscipline.org/learn/reference-guides/zero-tolerance
The Kween Speaks....Just listen! 