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)

2 , doreCreightonandBradBizzell,VirginiaTech andJanetTareilo, ,nosotrosrevisamoslaliteraturaconresp ectoapr ec camente,discutimossusp ensi ndeen-escuela,susp ensi nextraescolar,yprogramasalternativosdisc iplinariosdeeducaci s,elasuntodep ol ticasdemanoduraysurelaci nconelusoaumentadodepr cticasdisciplinariasesanalizado. :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).

3 Theseproblemb 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).

4 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).

5 CostenbaderandMarkson(1998),forexample,a nalyzedstudentsurveysthatincludedquestio nsab 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).However,duetothecontinuedcontroversy ofout-of-scho olsusp ensionandissueswithstudentsb eingunsup ervisedduringthescho oldayduringtheout-of-scho olsusp ensiontimep erio d,arecentincreaseintheuseofin-scho olsusp ensionhassurfacedasanalternativetoout-of -scho olsusp ension(Amuso,2007).

6 O'Brien(1976)providedoneofthe 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).

7 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, ).

8 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).

9 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).

10 AccordingtoBlomb 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 ( ).Thisp olicyre ectsanattempttoupholdscho oldistricts'accountabilityforsafetyinpub licscho olsacrosstheUnitedStates(Byrd,2001).