School Discipline in Public Education: A Brief Review of ...

1 Connexionsmo dule:m384151 SchoolDisciplineinPublicEducation:ABrief ReviewofCurrentPractices ducedbyTheConnexionsPro jectandlicensedundertheCreativeCommonsAt tributionLicense AbstractInthismanuscript,weexaminedtheli teratureregardingcurrentdisciplinaryprac ticesinAmericanscho eci cally,wediscussin-scho olsusp ension,out-of-scho olsusp ension, ,theissueofzerotolerancep :Thismanuscripthasb eenp eer-reviewed,accepted,andendorsedbytheNa tionalCouncilofProfessorsofEducationalAd ministration(NCPEA)asasigni ,thismo duleispublishedintheInternationalJournal ofEducationalLeadershipPrepa-ration,1 Volume6,Numb er2(April- june , 2011 ), doreCreightonandBradBizzell,VirginiaTech andJanetTareilo, ,nosotrosrevisamoslaliteraturaconresp ectoapr ec camente,discutimossusp ensi ndeen-escuela,susp ensi nextraescolar,yprogramasalternativosdisc iplinariosdeeducaci s,elasuntodep ol ticasdemanoduraysurelaci nconelusoaumentadodepr cticasdisciplinariasesanalizado.

2 :May25,201111:18amGMT-5 dule:m384152note:Estaesunatraducci np orcomputadoradelap ngeneralynodeb ecialEducationProgramCo ordinatorfortheKleinIndep endentScho olDistrictinKlein, ,aswellasprofessionalwriting,todo ,b othstateandnational,toreformscho olDisciplineinPublicEducationInappropria teb ehaviorsofstudentsinscho olarenotanewissueinpubliceducation;teach ershaverep ortedb ehaviorproblemsinscho olsincetheearlyb eginningsofthepublicscho olsystem(Morris&Howard,2003).Theseproble mb ehaviorsexhibitedbystudentshaveb eenaddressedinscho olsthroughscho olconsequencesincludingverbalreprimands, corp oralpunishment,after-scho oldetention,in-scho olsusp ension,out-of-scho olsusp ension,and nes(Skiba&Peterson,2000;Sugai&Horner,199 9;Townsend,2000).Scho oladministra-tors'useofout-of-scho olsusp ensionb eganasametho dofreducingstudentmisb ehaviorinthe1960sandhascontinuedtob eusedsincethattime(Adams,2000).Researche rsb egantoexpressconcernovertheremovalofstud entsfromthegeneraleducationclassro omb ecauseitpromotedmorep o orb ehaviorandinfactdidnotaddressthestudents 'b ehaviorsatall(Ho chman&Worner,1987;Sauter,2001).

3 Resultsfromstudiesinwhichscho olsusp ensionwasexaminedprovideddatarevealingth atstudentswhoweresusp endedfromscho olwereinfactlikelytob ecomerep eato enders,receivingadditionalsusp ensionsovertime(Ambrose&Gibson,1995;Cost enbader&Markson,1998).Despitethese ndings,out-of-scho olsusp ensionhasstillb eenrep ortedtob eoneofthemostcommonlyuseddisciplinarycon sequencesforstudentmisb ehavior(Morrison&Skiba,2001;Sauter,2001; Skiba,2002).Morerecentlyout-of-scho olsusp ensionhasevenb eenusedforminoro ensesdespiteitsoriginalintentiontoaddres sseriousinfractionsofscho olp oliciesandmoresevereinappropriateb ehaviors(Amuso,2007;Dupp er,1998).CostenbaderandMarkson(1998),for example,analyzedstudentsurveysthatinclud edquestionsab outin-scho olsusp ensionandout-of-scho olsusp ehaviorsthatresultedinthescho olsusp ensionwerephysicalaggression,verbaldisre sp ect,andprofanitywithscho olsta .Scho olp oliciesandpro cedurescontinuetob edevelop edandre-evaluatedtoaddressmisb ehaviorandstillincludeout-of-scho olsusp ension(Leone,Mighter,Malmgren,&Meisel,20 00).

4 However,duetothecontinuedcontroversyofou t-of-scho olsusp ensionandissueswithstudentsb eingunsup ervisedduringthescho oldayduringtheout-of-scho olsusp ensiontimep erio d,arecentincreaseintheuseofin-scho olsusp ensionhassurfacedasanalternativetoout-of -scho olsusp ension(Amuso,2007).O'Brien(1976)provided oneofthe rstformalaccountsoftheuseofin-scho olsusp ensionthroughastudyforMinneap olis'scho olin-scho olsusp ,O'Briendeterminedthatthepremiseb ehindthein-scho olsusp ensionprogramswastohelpstudentslearnto accepttheconsequencesfortheiractions aswellastohelpthem thinkab outwhatthey'redoing (O'Brien,1976, ).Althoughin-scho olsusp ensionhascontinuedtob eutilizedsincethattime,ithasnotb ,theassignmentofb othin-scho olsusp ensionandout-of-scho olsusp ensionstostudentshasalsoledtoseveralduep ro cesshearings(Troyan,2003).KemererandWals h(2000) rstchallengedin1961, ,afteracollegeexp elledstudentsfromscho olwithoutprovidingthestudentstheirduepro cessrights( ,1961).

5 Then,in1975, ortedtherequirementofscho olstoprovideduepro cessrightstostudentswhowereassignedscho olsusp ensionforashortamountoftime,aswellaswhen studentswereexp elled( ez,1975).Inadditiontocourtdecisionsregar dingthesusp ensionandexpulsionofstudents,federalands tatelawshavein uencedhowdisciplineinscho ,theGunFreeScho olsActof1994wasinitiatedaspartoftheImpro vingAmerica'sScho olAct1994( ,1994).TheGunFreeScho olsActof1994requiredthatallstatesthatrec eivedfederalfundingdevelopdisciplinep oliciesthatincludetheexpulsionofastudent fromscho olforatleastonescho olyearfor astudentwhoisdeterminedtohavebroughtawea p ontoscho ol (GunFreeScho olAct,1994, ).AlsoincludedintheGunFreeScho olsActwasamandateforlo caleducationagencyp oliciestob econsistentwiththeIndividualswithDisabil itiesEducationAct(IDEA).Thecase-by-casea llowanceintheGunFreeScho olActsrequiredlo caleducationagenciestodisciplinestudents withdisabilitiesinaccordancewiththelawsa ndpro oliciesinscho olsthroughouttheUnitedStatesmightb eonecausefortheincreaseduseofout-of-plac ementdisciplinaryconsequencesb ecausethetermhasbroadenedsincetheb oliciesgrewoutofdrugenforcementp oliciesestablishedinthe1980satthefederal andstatelevels(Skiba&Peterson,1999).

6 Zerotoleranceb ecameatermusedfromthe1980sontorefertop oliciesinwhichallo enseswereseverelypunished,andbythelate19 80sscho olswereb eginningtoformzero-tolerancep oliciesthatincludedthesusp ensionandexpulsionofstudentsforcertaino enses(Skiba&Peterson,1999).Examplesofstu dentb ehaviorsthatwerecategorizedintozero-tole rancep oliciesincludeddrugp ossession,participationingangactivity,an dstudentp ossessionofweap ,however,scho oldistrictsb egandevelopingzero-tolerancep oliciesacrosstheUnitedStatesforb ehaviorssuchastobaccouseorp ossession,scho oldisruption,andotherlessseriousandlessv iolentb ehaviors(Skiba&Peterson,1999).Accordingt oBlomb erg(2004),ChicagoPublicscho olsrep ortedanincreaseinscho olsusp ensions(in-scho olsusp ensionandout[U+ 2011 ]of[U+ 2011 ]scho olsusp ensioncombined)by51%theyearfollowingthea doptionofazero-tolerancedisciplinep ciationofScho olPsychologists(2007)citedtheNCLB requirementofstatesto adoptazero[U+ 2011 ]tolerancep olicythatemp owersteacherstoremoveviolentorp ersistentlydisruptivestudentsfromtheclas sro om ( ).

7 Thisp olicyre ectsanattempttoupholdscho oldistricts'accountabilityforsafetyinpub licscho olsacrosstheUnitedStates(Byrd,2001).Howe ver,sp eci cguidelinesforthedevelopmentofzero-toler ancep oliciesarenotprovidedintheNCLB andmightaccountforthevariancepresentamon gzero-tolerancep oliciesinscho oliciescanb eobservedinastudyconductedbytheNationalC enterforEducationStatistics(NCES,1998).I nthisstudy,theNCES examined1,234publicscho olsincludingelementary,intermediate,andh ighscho oladministratorsregardingthenumb erofdisciplinaryactionsassignedtostudent sandthep ercentofscho olsthatadoptedzero-tolerancep oliciesforfoursp eci co enses,including:(a)p ossessionoruseofa rearm;(b)p ossessionoruseofaweap on(otherthana rearm);(c)p ossession,distribution,oruseofalcoholord rugsincludingtobacco;and(d)physicalattac ksorphysical (1998)determinedthat79%ofscho olsadoptedzero-tolerancep oliciesforscho olviolence,79%fortobacco,87%foralcohol,8 8%fordrugs,91%forweap onsotherthan rearms,and94%for ortedbyscho oladministratorsincludedtheassignmentofe xpulsion,placementinadisciplinaryalterna tiveeducationprogram,andextendedout-ofsc ho olsusp (2009)indicatedthatdespitetheintentofzer o-tolerancep oliciestokeepscho olssafeandreduceseriousmisb ehaviorinscho ols,thenumb erofdisciplinaryactionsrep ortedbyscho olsforphysicalaggression,insub ordination,andthep ossessionof rearmsorotherexplosivedeviceshasnotchang edtoameasurabledegreesincethe2003[U+ 2011 ]2004scho dule:m384154 Althoughlegislationhasprovidedguidelines forstudentdisciplineandsp eci co enses,amoreimp or-tantasp ecttoconsideristheapplicationoftheseguid elinesinscho olsandscho oldistricts(Kralevich,2007).

8 Scho oladministrators,leaders,andotherscho olsta mustb efamiliarwiththecurrentlegislationandthe implicationsofthesemandatestomaintaincon sistencyofeducationallawwithscho olp eci cscho oldisciplinarysanctions,butalsoforhowthe seprogramsareimplementedandhavein oliciesbyscho olscontinuestob eacontroversialtopicineducationasthesep olicieshaveb eenshowntob ebroadandlo oselyde ned,leavingthemop enforinterpretation(Verdugo,2002).Verdug o(2002)alsoexplainedthattheambiguityinhe rentinzero-tolerancep oliciesfailstotakeintoaccounttheintentof studentb ehaviorsandcontextsurroundingb oliciesmightnotb ee ectiveinreducingseriousb ehaviorandmightactuallyincreasethelikeli ho o doffuturesusp ensionsofstudentsandleadtoacademicfailur eandstudentdrop out(Skiba&Peterson,2000;Verdugo,2002). olSusp ensionAspreviouslydiscussed,in-scho olsusp ensionhasb olsusp ensionwasascho olconsequencethatservedasacompromisetoth ecriticismofout-of-scho olsusp ension(Troyan,2003).

9 In-scho olsusp ensionprogramsmightvaryfromcampustocampu s;however,theseprogramsincorp orateseveralcommoncomp onents(Short,1988).Thesecomp onentsinclude(a)theplacementofthestudent up onarrivaltoscho olinaseparateclassro omawayfromtheirp eersandregulareducationalenvironment,(b) acerti edteacher,educationalassistant,orb othtooverseethestudent(s)inthein-scho olsusp ensionclassro om,and(c) olsusp ensionhaveevolvedovertheyearsandincludep unitive,academic,therap eutic,andindividualin-scho ol-susp ensionprograms(Morris&Howard,2003).Maind i erencesinthefourprogramsaretheamountofsu pp ortsta andinteractiontimeb etweenthesta andthestudentduringthestudent'splacement inthein-scho olsusp ensionprogram(Morris&Howard,2003).Howeve r,thepunitivemo delofscho oldisciplinethatb eganinthelate1960sandearly1970scontinued throughthe1990sinscho olsacrosstheUnitedStatesandisstillthemos toftenutilizedprograminscho olsto day(Amuso,2007;Morris&Howard,2003).

10 Onema jorconcernwithin-scho olsusp ensionprogramsisthatstudentsmisseducatio nalopp ortunitiesforlearningb olsusp ensionclassro oms,studentsworkindep endentlyonteacher-assignedworkandarenota llowedtheopp ortunitytoaskquestionsab outcontentorreceiveremedialinstructionwh enneedingfurtherassistancewithscho olassignments(Short,1988).TheCommissionf orPositiveChangeintheOaklandPublicScho ols(1992)expressedfurtherconcernwithin-s cho olsusp ensionprogramswhenitconcludedthatin-scho olsusp ensionnegativelyimpactedstudentself-este emandincreasedthelikeliho o dofstudentscho osingtodropoutofscho olSusp ensionAtonetime,out-of-scho olsusp ensionwasrep ortedasoneofthemostfrequentlyutilizedsch o olconsequences(Breunlin,Cimmarusti,Bryan t-Edwards,&Hetherington,2002;Christle,Ne lson,&Jolivette,2004;Raf-faeleMendez&Kno ,2003).Althoughinmorerecentyearsin-scho olsusp ensionhasb eenutilizedasaninterventioninlieuofout-o f-scho olsusp ension,manyscho olsuseout-of-scho olsusp ensioninresp onsetozero-tolerancep oliciesandtoremovestudentsinane orttomaintainasafescho olenvironment(Amuso,2007).