Suspending suspensions

There are many topics in the field of education that arouse strong feelings and create great debate among professionals and the public. The use of out-of-school suspension is one of these topics.

Suspension is documented as one of the most common interventions for students who act out (see references). Despite little evidence that it improves student behavior, a recent St. Paul Pioneer Press feature reported that Minnesota schools are imposing out-of-school suspensions at a rate of over 50,000 each year.

I currently work in a Special Education program for middle school and high school students who have Emotional/ Behavioral Disorders (EBD). EXPLORE is a program for approximately 80 students and is located in a separate building (Federal Setting IV). The students’ backgrounds include a variety of issues, including anger, attention deficit, depression, school avoidance and truancy issues. Students typically have significant delays in their learning and often experience a substantial amount of failure in school.

Program staff came to the realization that this particular group of students has spent a lot of time out of school on dismissal and suspension. The population has a very difficult time working within the bounds of a typical school or classroom. The staff knew, however, that if they were going to be effective, they would need to try something radically different. In an effort to implement a more welcoming, student-centered educational environment, a no suspension or dismissal practice was instituted at the beginning of the 2002- 03 school year.

The intensity of some students' behavior provided significant challenges to the implementation of such a policy. Many students opposed the new practices. After the first few rocky months of keeping students in school, however, students and staff began to see the positive effect on relationships and embraced the changes. It became increasingly evident that as students were spending more time in school, they were experiencing school success in ways unimaginable just a few short months earlier.

As we move into the second year of using alternatives to suspension, we have been faced with many of the arguments against such a practice. "What about safety? What about the other students’ education? Aren’t there some things that just can’t be tolerated?" Even as we struggle with the unknown of eliminating an old practice and implementing a new one, we continue to find new reasons why this practice is in the best interest of students and the school as a whole.

Many of the rationale for using alternatives to suspension are listed below. The list provides reasons for persons of varying academic or administrative orientation to seriously evaluate suspension and exclusion practices.

1. Schools serve a different population of students than in the past.

2. Schools are legally bound to provide an appropriate education to all students.

3. Students of color are suspended in a disproportionate rate.

4. Suspensions don’t work for their intended purpose.

5. Student-friendly practices contribute to a less aggressive environment.

6. Students wouldn’t use suspensions if they were in charge of a school.

7. Parents value alternatives to suspension.

8. Using alternatives to suspension helps to create a more effective educational environment for all students.

9. There are alternatives.

Further discussion of each of the reasons for eliminating suspensions follows:

1. Schools serve a different population of students than in the past.
   Students today have an entirely different set of demands and stressors placed upon them. They are also more representative of the entire spectrum of students because students who would normally have dropped out are now staying in school much longer. Society is placing much more emphasis on the importance of students needing their high school diploma as a precursor to gainful employment. Students are also being required to stay in school by compulsory attendance laws and government initiatives like the “No Child Left Behind” act (NCLB).
   
   This new population includes a group that has not been successful and, until recently, simply chose to avoid the struggle and drop out. Several of these changes in practice and policy will no longer allow this kind of student to naturally select out of our schools. They will, however, continue to labor in our current structure and remain the focus of many of our disciplinary actions. Punishing and dismissing these students in any fashion will not help them to overcome their educational challenges.
    

2. Schools are legally bound to provide an appropriate education to all students.
   There are many legal requirements and constraints that guide school personnel. One of the most important pieces of federal legislation is the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997 (IDEA), which addresses discipline practices for students with disabilities. Many of the behaviors for which students are disciplined are the same behaviors for which they are receiving special services.
   
   The new federal “No Child Left Behind” legislation will also increase the demands placed on schools to educate all students. Based on this legislation, educators must become increasingly responsible for the attendance and, ultimately, graduation rates of all of their students. No longer will it be permissible for some students to “fall through the cracks” and either stop attending or be suspended or expelled on a routine basis.
    

3. Students of color are suspended at a disproportionate rate.
   “The objectivity and fairness of out-of-school suspensions has been questioned as some groups of students including male, minority, and academically and behaviorally challenged students are suspended in disproportionate numbers” (2). Minority students, especially, continue to be suspended at rates dramatically higher than their representation in the general population (6).
   
   For the 1999-2000 school year in Minnesota, students of color were suspended at rates well beyond their representation in the population. The Minnesota Department of Education reported that although African-American youth made up only 6% of the total enrollment, they represented 36% of the total disciplinary actions. While only 16% of the state school enrollment is classified as minority, this group accounted for 49% of the total discipline(9).
   
   These practices have wide-ranging consequences for students who are African American. Most obvious is the lost opportunities for schooling. This often leads to remedial programming, lack of social interaction with peers, and increased opportunities to become involved in less prosocial activities like being out on the streets unsupervised (10). Students who are not in school quickly drop behind their peers and continue the vicious cycle of failing in school, acting out, being suspended, and, much too often, dropping out all together (2).
    

4. Suspensions don’t work for their intended purpose.
   
   The zero-tolerance movement suggests that suspensions are effective in that they remove acting out students from schools and make them safer while they are gone. However, they have little effect on encouraging students to perform socially appropriate behaviors.
   
   Studies indicate that suspension is not a deterrent for future misbehavior (2) (1). Recidivism rates suggest that suspensions are ineffective because students are removed from constructive learning environments (6). Thirty-two percent of the students in one study who had been suspended reported that suspensions were “not at all” helpful and thought that they would “probably be suspended again” (6).
    

5. Student-friendly practices contribute to a less aggressive environment.
   
   Although principals are obligated to provide an environment that is conducive to learning and is safe for students and staff, research suggests that suspensions do not decrease acting out behavior or create a safe environment, but may actually increase aggressiveness and intolerance (3).
   
   Some states are finding that get tough/zero tolerance policies may actually increase the very behaviors they were designed to reduce (3). A 1998 U.S. Department of Education study found that schools that had zero-tolerance policies were more likely to have a violent episode that required police involvement than non-zero-tolerance schools (2). A 2002 article in the Journal of School Health (5) reports that students are more connected to schools that use less severe discipline practices than suspensions and expulsions.
    

6. Students wouldn’t use suspension if they were the principal of a school.
   
   When students have a choice, they often indicate they would not use suspensions. A study of a Tuscaloosa Alabama High School found that those students who were suspended would chose just about any other intervention, including Saturday school (8).
   
   Another example is a senior high student in our EXPLORE program who was "suspended all the time.” Not only did he miss school, he often took several days to cool down and recuperate following the difficulty of being kicked out. Suspensions didn’t work for him because they were just a way to get out of school. Since he didn't want to be in school anyway, he would engage in whatever behavior the school had defined as suspendable, the "bottom line." If he just skipped school to stay home, his mother would get upset with him. If he truanted from school enough, the police would eventually get involved and take him to the truancy center. But if school personnel dismissed him, his day off would be "the school's fault.” This young man said that he would definitely not use suspensions if he were the principal of a school.
    

7. Parents value alternatives to suspension.
   
   Parents of students who are continually suspended develop certain beliefs about schools. They are often frustrated with ongoing negative reports about their child. They get tired of missing work day after day to pick up their child. They get tired of wondering what trouble their child is getting into while they are unsupervised at home. They also develop a mistrust for a system of professionals who tout themselves as understanding and caring for young people, just not theirs. Volumes of research indicate that “Suspension further disembowels and isolates already marginalized students and their parents from the school” (2).
   
   By reducing or eliminating suspensions, educators can experience a dramatic change in the way they are viewed by parents. Parents are much more understanding and willing to embrace tough requests from schools if they see that the staff is really trying to find alternatives for their child. With the whole team working in concert, it is a more collaborative approach than the school dictating to the parent when the child must leave. Some parents may still insist that suspensions be used with their child because they feel like it really is effective. Imagine the change in a parent trying to convince a principal to send a student home.
    

8. Using alternatives to suspension helps to create a more effective educational environment for all students
   
   If you reflect on all of the data presented here, we may wonder why suspensions are still so popular. “Ironically, punishment is widely accepted because it agrees with popular notions about school discipline” (4). Further, it is “easy to administer, works for many students without challenging behaviors, and has been part of the… history that dominates much of our society” (4). Much too often, suspension is for adults who need a break from challenging students. When schools condone this practice, the staff and students are off the hook for figuring out what is really wrong and working toward a solution. The student simply leaves for the day, comes back the next day and life goes on. Worse yet, the behavior repeats itself and the student is sent home again and again.
   
   When schools have practices that keep students in school, they are more likely to get at the root of the problem much more quickly. That means that staff have to work harder toward a more immediate intervention, but ultimately it speeds up finding a solution. This is clearly in the best interest of the student and the school community as a whole.
    

9. There are alternatives.
   
   As all educators know, discipline involves more than just using procedures to control student misbehavior (11). Most importantly, discipline should be used to teach new, prosocial behaviors. Successful alternatives not only keep students in school, they teach students new behaviors in an effort to decrease problematic behavior in the future.
   
   Sometimes when students are not able to manage their behaviors, they need to be away from the classroom setting preparing to be a learner. Schools need to create spaces for students who are not ready to be in the classroom, but still have the right to be in school learning how to successfully return to their class. Many schools are replacing out-of-school suspension with in-school suspension, Saturday schooling and other in-school options that “Promote continual learning and attendance” (8).
   
   Programs gaining popularity in Minnesota include Restorative Justice and Restitution. These practices seek to help students fix their mistakes by making amends, first and foremost, to themselves and then to the community they harmed. The belief is that students who take actions to accept responsibility can learn valuable lessons and grow stronger for future situations.
   
   Administrators are faced with enormous demands in today’s climate of increased accountability. What principals may not realize, however, is that changing a practice like suspensions not only reduces the opportunity for negativity, but it can be the catalyst for creating a more effective educational environment overall.

Chris Helgestad is an administrative intern with Intermediate District 287 which serves students and districts in western Hennepin County. He is also a student in the principal licensure program at the University of Minnesota. Chris is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the EXPLORE program, a separate site E/BD school for students in grades 8-12. The program for students with severe emotional disturbances has chosen to use alternatives to suspension with students for the past two years.

Chris can be reached at cghelgestad@int287.k12.mn.us or 952-593-1181, extension 115.

References

(1) Bock, S.J., Tapscott, K.E., Savner, J.L. (1998). Suspension and expulsion: Effective management for students? Intervention in school and clinic, 34, 50-52

(2) Breunlin, D.C., Cimmarusti, R.A., Bryant- Edwards, T.L., Hetherington, J.S. (2002). Conflict resolution training as an alternative to suspension for violent behavior. Journal of Educational Research, 95, 349-357.

(3) Lloyd, D. (2001). Unconditional schools, youth of promise. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 10, 150-152.

(4) Maag, J.W. (2001). Rewarded by punishment: Reflections on the disuse of positive reinforcement in schools. Exceptional Children, 67, 173-86.

(5) McNeely, C.A., Nonnemaker, J.M., Blum, R.W. (2002). Promoting school connectedness: Evidence from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. The Journal of School Health, 72, 138-146.

(6) Mendez, L. M. Raffaele & Knoff, H.M. (2003). Who gets suspended from school and why: A demographic analysis of school and disciplinary infractions in a large school district. Education and Treatment of Children, 26, 30-51.

(7) Morrison, G.L., Anthony, S., Storino, M., Dillon, C. (2001). An examination of disciplinary histories and the individual and educational characteristics of students who participate in an in school suspension program. Education and Treatment of Children, 24, 276-293.

(8) Rodney, L.W, Crafter, B., Rodney, H.E., & Mupier, R.M. (1999). Variables contributing to grade retention among African American adolescent males. The Journal of Educational Research, 92, 185-190.

(9) Tosto, P. (2002). When racism, discipline meet. St. Paul Pioneer Press, May 6, 2002.

(10) Townsend, B.L. (2000). The disproportionate discipline of African American learners: Reducing school suspensions and expulsions. Exceptional Children, 66, 381-391.

(11) Yell, M.L., Rozalski, M.E., Drasgow, E. (2001). Disciplining students with disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 33, 1-20.

Subscribe
Want to receive an e-mail notice when the next edition of The Leader is published? Send your e-mail address to licensure@umn.edu and you won't miss an issue.