Hubbry Logo
Expulsion (education)Expulsion (education)Main
Open search
Expulsion (education)
Community hub
Expulsion (education)
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Expulsion (education)
Expulsion (education)
Expulsion (education)
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Expulsion, also known as dismissal, withdrawal, or permanent exclusion (British English), is the permanent removal or banning of a student from a school, school district, college, university, or TAFE due to persistent violation of that institution's rules, or in extreme cases, for a single offense of marked severity. Colloquialisms for expulsion include being "kicked out of school", "expelled", or "sent down". Laws and procedures regarding expulsion vary between countries and states.

The practice of pressuring parents to voluntarily withdraw their child from an educational institution, termed off-rolling in the UK, is comparable to expulsion.[1] Rates of expulsion may be especially high for students of color, even when their behavioral infractions are the same as those of white children.[2] Certain disabilities, such as autism and ADHD, also increase the risk of expulsion,[3] despite the fact that this could constitute unlawful discrimination in many jurisdictions.[4]

By country

[edit]

Ireland

[edit]
See also: Education in the Republic of Ireland

In Ireland, a school must notify the local Educational Welfare Officer before expelling a student; they will then try and find a solution. The student cannot be expelled until twenty days after the educational welfare officer has been notified.[5][6] Under Section 29 of the Education Act 1998 an expelled child's parent(s) may appeal an expulsion to the Secretary General of the Department of Education.[7] The Child and Family Agency (Tusla) may also appeal an expulsion.[8] If the department upholds the expulsion, a further appeal can be brought to the High Court.[9][10][11]

In 2017–18, 29 primary school pupils were expelled in Ireland, up from 18 the previous year. In 2015–16, 195 secondary school students were expelled.[12]

New Zealand

[edit]

In New Zealand, exclusion and expulsion are methods for removing a student from a school for misconduct. Both are governed by sections 13 to 19 of the Education Act 1989,[13] and the Education Stand Down, Suspension, Exclusion, and Expulsion Rules 1999.[14]

The difference between exclusion and expulsion is that students aged under 16 are excluded, while students aged 16 and over are expelled. For students excluded, because they are under the minimum school leaving age, the excluding school is required to find an alternative school for the student to attend, or reinstate the student if another school cannot be found. For students that are expelled, the expelling school is not required to find an alternative school, as the student is over the minimum school leaving age.

Exclusion/expulsion cannot be directly done by the principal. It must be done through suspending the student, and requiring the school's board of trustees, or a standing disciplinary committee of the board, to independently assess whether or not the situation is serious enough to justify exclusion or expulsion of the student.[15]

In 2009, exclusions and expulsions rates were 2.41 and 2.01 per thousand students respectively. Students were more likely to be excluded or expelled if they were male, of Maori or Pacific Island descent, and/or attended a school with a low (1–4) socioeconomic decile.[16]

The most common reasons for exclusions and expulsions in 2009 were:[17][18]

  • Continual disobedience – 41.2% of exclusions/25.3% of expulsions
  • Drugs incl. substance abuse – 14.2%/25.8%
  • Physical assault on other students – 17.3%/16.8%
  • Theft – 4.4%/8.9%
  • Verbal assault on staff – 5.0%/2.6%
  • Physical assault on staff – 4.5%/1.6%
  • Weapons – 2.5%/2.6%
  • Vandalism – 1.3%/2.6%
  • Alcohol – 1.0%/3.7%
  • Verbal assault on other students – 1.1%/0.5%

Arson, sexual harassment, sexual misconduct, and smoking were the other main reasons for exclusion and expulsion recorded.

England

[edit]

State sector

[edit]

If a student has been expelled from two schools, then any state school is legally allowed to refuse admittance of that student. Schools on special measures may refuse to admit a student who has been expelled from only one school. Therefore, a student who has been expelled from two schools might be totally removed from the state education system. As a result, it is rare for a pupil to be expelled or permanently excluded in the UK's state sector.

The exclusion of pupils is governed by the Education Act 2002.[19]

The Secretary of State's guidance states that exclusion is a serious step. Exclusion should be used only in response to serious breaches of a school's discipline policy and only after a range of alternative strategies to resolve the pupil's disciplinary problems have been tried and proven to have failed and where allowing the pupil to remain in school would be seriously detrimental to the education or welfare of other pupils and staff, or of the pupil himself or herself.

In practice, a student can usually be subject to permanent exclusion for a total of five disciplinary breaches, for which the student does not have to receive formal warnings. Depending on their offence, a child can be excluded from the school system within any range of time after their misdeed. Though the teaching staff may recommend a pupil to be expelled, only the headteacher is legally empowered to exclude a student; he or she is not permitted to delegate that power to another person, but if he or she is ill or otherwise unable to perform their duties, another staff member may become the acting headteacher and inherit the power to expel students.

When excluding a student, the headteacher must inform the pupil's parents of the duration of the exclusion whether it be temporary or permanent, reasons for exclusion, and the procedures which a parent may take to make an appeal. The headteacher must also inform the local education authority of the circumstances surrounding permanent exclusions, fixed term exclusions exceeding five days, and exclusions which result in a student being unable to take a public examination.

Reasons for permanent exclusion
[edit]

A headteacher might expel a student out for a first or one-off incident of appropriate severity.[20] For a single case of one of the following, a pupil can be permanently excluded for:

  • A serious act of violence, including actual or threatened violence against a staff member or another student
  • Possession of a weapon or any other hazardous item
  • A sexual offence, including sexual abuse and assault
  • A racially-aggravated offence
  • Severe hazing of another student
  • A drug offence, usually the supply of a controlled drug to other pupils. Possession of a small amount of a soft drug such as tobacco or cannabis is not normally considered sufficient grounds for expulsion
  • Computer hacking

If a student has previous disciplinary records of violating other school rules and regulations, that too could result in expulsion. In these cases, expulsion is used as a final resort if the student has shown no signs of improvement in his or her behaviour despite disciplinary measures, and has failed to respond to a final warning. Some offences which may result in expulsion when repeated persistently include, but is not limited to:

Pupils who have done nothing wrong to merit expulsion are sometimes expelled if the school does not expect them to achieve sufficiently high grades in external examinations. This illegal policy is known as "off-rolling", and seriously harms the life chances of young people.[21]

Appeals
[edit]

The pupil and their parents can appeal to the school governors against the expulsion. If the appeal fails to reinstate the pupil, a further appeal can be made to an appeals board which sits on the behalf of the local education authority.

Appeals to the governors
[edit]

The parents of an excluded pupil are entitled to appeal against expulsion or an exclusion exceeding five days to a panel of school governors acting as a court.

The panel, which consists of parents and staff and cannot include the headteacher, is not legally able to exclude a pupil or extend a term of exclusion; but it can convert a permanent exclusion to a fixed term one, reduce the length of a fixed-term exclusion, or cancel an exclusion.

The appeal must occur no sooner than six days after and no more than 15 days after the exclusion begins. The panel considers oral, written, or physical evidence from the school detailing the case for expulsion, and from the parents of the excluded pupil. The pupil and their parents may argue that the excluded pupil was not responsible for the act for which they have been excluded, or that the punishment was disproportionate to the offence.

Appeal to the local education authority
[edit]

If the appeal to the governors is unsuccessful, an expelled or excluded student and their parents may go to an appeals board. This panel, which is appointed by the local education authority, must be autonomous of the authority, the school, and the parents of the excluded student.[20]

The majority of the appeals that these panels hear are not against exclusions, but are for the admission of pupils into schools. Although the local education authority are in theory obligated to provide education to a pupil under school leaving age Year 11 and below, in practice usually when the pupil is denied access to other schools or the pupil referral unit the local education authority employs techniques such as appointing a single tutor for one lesson a week.

[edit]

There are a number of projects that provide free legal representation to pupils who are appealing against their permanent exclusions from school. The institution cited in letters detailing the reasons for permanent exclusions is the Coram Children's Legal Centre.[22]

There are voluntary groups who provide trainee lawyers to represent parents at both governing body appeals and independent appeal panels. The City School Exclusion Service (CitySES) is one such project.[23]

Independent sector

[edit]

In the independent sector, a pupil may be permanently excluded at the discretion of the headteacher.

Distinction between expulsion and rustication
[edit]

Whereas expulsion from a UK independent school means permanent removal from the school, rustication or suspension usually means removal from the school for a set period, for example, the remainder of the current term.

Managed moves

In 1999, protocols were introduced to reduce the amount of permanent exclusions every year.[24] This involved a process called a 'managed move' where schools had the option to transfer a student to another school without a permanent exclusion being written on their record.[25] It is usually done on a trial basis where the child can spend 6 to 16 weeks at the new school before integrating. If nothing occurs in between the trial period, the managed move is considered successful.[26]

Oxford

[edit]

Historically, bannimus (Latin: "we banish") was the form of expulsion of any individual from the University of Oxford, by putting the proctorial edict up in some public place, as a denunciation or promulgation of it.[27] It also served to prevent the individual from claiming the cause of expulsion was unknown. Rustication, that is, when a student is sent down or banished from the university for a period of time before being allowed to return and further their education, is more common. The term bannimus is related to bannition, which is the general expulsion of an individual from a university.

United States

[edit]

Expulsion in general

[edit]

In the United States, expulsion criteria and process vary from state to state. Depending on local school board jurisdiction, approval from that school's local school board may be required before a student can be expelled, as opposed to a suspension, which may require approval from the principal or a school board member, including the superintendent. Students who have been expelled from the school face numerous restrictions, in which they are no longer eligible to attend or visit the school. Like an out-of-school suspension, students who breach an expulsion, which includes visiting the school they have been expelled from, or perform or attend any activity with any students or staff who are active with the school, will be arrested for, and charged with trespassing. Students are usually not expelled for academic violations such as plagiarism that would be punishable in college. However, in some jurisdictions such as California, vulgarity which is not defined anywhere within California law is enough of a reason for a student to be expelled from any school.[28] (Note: California statute has been indirectly invalidated by the Supreme Court in FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. (2012).)

Pupil rights

[edit]

While in the Criminal or Juvenile Justice one has enumerated and unenumerated rights upon accusation, pupils do not have such rights when within an expulsion process. For example, in California, pupils have the following rights:

  • Have an expulsion hearing within 30 school days[29]
  • To appeal the results of an expulsion hearing
  • To remain silent

However, there are rights that pupils do not have during the expulsion process that they would have in a court of law:

Expulsion rates

[edit]

A 2001 report from Justice Policy Institute showed that expulsions nearly doubled from 1974 to 1998 despite student victimization rates remaining stable.[32] Beginning with the Gun-Free School Zones Act, and following the Columbine shooting tragedy, schools have become increasingly willing to suspend or have expelled students for minor behavior offenses.[33] For example, in Maryland during the 2006–2007 school year, while 2% of suspensions were for weapons, 37% were for disrespect, insubordination, or disruption.[34] The Task Force on the Education of Maryland's American Males noted that high suspension and expulsion rates do little more than increase court referrals for minor misbehavior, and those actions put a child on the path toward delinquency or accelerates his journey there.[35] These policies are more generally known as zero tolerance.[33]

Students who have been expelled from a building in primary and secondary schools are given an option to attend class at an alternate location. Alternative schools are usually owned by the expelling school district for expelled students to have the option to attend daily lessons. Students have other options, such as homeschooling, boarding schools, private schools, and online courses, such as APEX or K-12. In some states, such as Wisconsin, other public school districts are not required to enroll students who are currently serving a term of expulsion.[36] In some cases, such as permanent expulsion from a district, this type of statutory authority can have the effect of displacing an expelled student from the public education system of an entire state, effectively ending their educational career.[37] When it comes to student discipline, there is a marked difference in procedure between public and private institutions. With public schools, the school must provide the student with constitutional due process protections as public educational institutions operate as an extension of state governments. With private schools, on the other hand, the student can be expelled for any reason so long as the expulsion was not "arbitrary and capricious". Generally, as long as a private school follows the procedures in its student handbook, a court will not view its actions as arbitrary and capricious.[38][39]

Some states, like Texas, report expulsion to the juvenile court system - the model in Texas was passed in 1995.

Notable expellees

[edit]

Many celebrities claim to have been expelled from school; however, some may be exaggerating in order to portray a rebellious image, and they may merely have voluntarily withdrawn from a school rather than being formally expelled:

  • Banksy claimed to have been expelled, but as his identity is not public knowledge this cannot be confirmed.[40]
  • Cheryl is another; some articles say she was expelled from school twice, others that she was merely suspended twice.[41][42]
  • It is sometimes claimed that Willem Dafoe was expelled from Appleton East High School for making pornography, although he actually dropped out when a film he was editing containing nudity was found in the school AV room.[43]
  • Amy Winehouse claimed that she was expelled from the Sylvia Young Theatre School, but this was refuted by her old school and by her father.[44]
  • Mark Zuckerberg was almost expelled from Harvard University while creating Facebook's prototype, FaceMash.com. He was charged with breach of security, violating copyrights, violating individual privacy, and a violation of university policy on distribution of digitized images. However, those charges were ultimately dropped.[45]

Actual expellees include:

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Expulsion (education)

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Expulsion in education constitutes the permanent or extended removal of a from a school's enrollment, typically imposed by school administrators or boards as a disciplinary sanction for egregious violations of conduct policies that endanger safety or disrupt the . This measure differs from temporary suspension by its longer duration—often up to one year or indefinite—and its exclusion from the originating institution, though alternative educational placements may be mandated in some jurisdictions. Common grounds for expulsion include possession or use of weapons, firearms, or illegal drugs on ; physical assaults or threats of against peers or staff; and involvement in criminal acts such as , , or distribution of controlled substances. These infractions reflect a prioritization of collective safety, as empirical data links unchecked severe behaviors to broader school disorder, though application varies by local statutes and . The procedural framework for expulsion, particularly in public schools, mandates due process protections, including written notice of charges, an opportunity for a formal hearing with presentation, and potential appeals to ensure fairness. Failure to adhere to these steps can invalidate the action, underscoring legal safeguards against arbitrary exclusion. While expulsion aims to deter and safeguard the majority, longitudinal studies reveal adverse outcomes for affected students, including elevated dropout rates, diminished academic attainment, and heightened criminal involvement in adulthood, suggesting causal pathways from disrupted education to socioeconomic disadvantage. Controversies persist regarding racial and socioeconomic disparities in expulsion rates, with data indicating disproportionate impacts on minority and low-income youth, potentially tied to behavioral incidence differentials rather than alone, though source interpretations often emphasize equity reforms over enforcement rigor.

Definition and Fundamentals

Core Definition and Scope

Expulsion in education constitutes the formal, disciplinary removal of a from enrollment at a , typically imposed for violations deemed severe enough to warrant exclusion from the regular educational environment. This action differs fundamentally from temporary measures like suspension, as it often results in permanent severance of the student's attendance rights at that institution, though some jurisdictions define it as a fixed-term , such as up to 12 months in state law. Expulsions apply primarily to primary and settings, encompassing both and private schools, but procedural safeguards are constitutionally mandated only in systems under U.S. precedents requiring and hearing to protect property interests in . The scope of expulsion extends to behaviors that undermine safety or order, distinguishing it from lesser infractions handled through in-school restrictions or short-term exclusions. In practice, it prohibits participation in school-sponsored activities and may necessitate alternative placements, such as continuation schools or homebound instruction, to fulfill requirements. While private schools retain broader discretion without obligations, public expulsions must align with state statutes and federal guidelines, such as those under the (IDEA) for students with special needs, which limit removals exceeding 10 days without manifestation determinations. This framework ensures expulsions serve as a last-resort mechanism rather than routine , though implementation varies by locale, with some policies allowing school boards to impose them for offenses like weapon possession or . Empirically, expulsions represent a small fraction of disciplinary actions—federal from the Civil Rights Data Collection indicate they comprised about 0.1% of enrollment in U.S. public schools during the 2017-2018 school year—but their application raises concerns over equity, as rates disproportionately affect certain demographics despite policies aimed at restraint. The core intent remains protective: to safeguard the by excising persistent threats, grounded in the causal reality that unchecked severe correlates with heightened risks of violence or disruption for peers and staff.

Historical Evolution

In medieval European universities, such as those founded in the 12th and 13th centuries like , , and , expulsion emerged as a formal disciplinary mechanism to enforce order among scholars and maintain institutional integrity. University statutes typically reserved permanent exclusion for grave infractions, including persistent , moral offenses like or , and disruptions to academic harmony, often enacted via proctorial edicts or rectorial decrees that publicly announced the banishment. These measures reflected the corporate nature of universities as self-governing bodies, where exclusion protected the community's scholarly pursuits from individual threats, though procedures varied and sometimes lacked modern equivalents. The expansion of compulsory public education in the 19th century introduced expulsion into primary and secondary schooling, particularly as enrollment surged in urban common schools amid industrialization and state mandates for . In the United States, early public school systems, influenced by reformers like , emphasized strict order to instill republican virtues, with expulsion applied for repeated defiance, violence, or that undermined collective discipline, though dominated immediate corrections. European systems, such as in Prussia's model exported via state laws, similarly codified removal for behaviors threatening pedagogical goals, with records from mid-century indicating expulsions comprised a small but deliberate fraction of sanctions to deter broader unrest. This era marked expulsion's shift from elite higher education to mass schooling, prioritizing institutional stability over individual retention in an age of nascent compulsory laws, like Massachusetts' 1852 mandate. By the early 20th century, expulsion in American schools evolved alongside progressive reforms that favored rehabilitative over purely punitive approaches, yet retained its role for irredeemable threats, with suspensions emerging as precursors in urban districts like New York City during the 1950s to temporarily exclude disruptive students amid desegregation tensions. Post-1960s civil rights scrutiny prompted procedural safeguards, as seen in U.S. Supreme Court rulings like Goss v. Lopez (1975), which extended due process to short-term removals but upheld expulsion's necessity for safety. The late 20th century crystallized stricter frameworks through zero-tolerance policies, originating in the 1980s War on Drugs context but formalized by the federal Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994, which required states to expel students possessing firearms on campus for at least one year, expanding subsequently to drugs and violence to curb rising school threats. This policy wave, while aimed at uniformity, amplified expulsion rates—reaching peaks like 100,000+ annual U.S. cases by the early 2000s—prioritizing deterrence and peer safety amid empirical links between unchecked misconduct and broader disorder.

Grounds and Triggers

Common Violations and Behaviors

In K-12 public schools across the , expulsions are reserved for severe violations that threaten safety or severely disrupt the educational environment, with requiring a one-year expulsion for students who bring firearms to school under the Gun-Free Schools Act. State statutes commonly mandate or authorize expulsion for possession or use of weapons, including knives or other dangerous instruments, on property or during school activities. Similarly, possession, use, or distribution of illegal drugs or controlled substances frequently triggers expulsion, as these acts pose risks to student health and order. Physical violence, such as or battery against other students or staff, constitutes another primary ground, particularly when it results in serious bodily injury or involves weapons. Willful destruction of property, , or causing significant damage also leads to expulsion in many jurisdictions, reflecting the need to protect public resources and prevent escalation. Repeated patterns of serious misbehavior, including persistent defiance that undermines authority or repeated assaults, can culminate in permanent removal after prior interventions like suspensions fail to correct the conduct. In higher education institutions, expulsions more often stem from violations, such as , cheating on examinations, or falsifying research data, which undermine the institution's scholarly standards. Conduct-related expulsions in universities typically involve severe breaches like , , or repeated violations that endanger the campus community, often following investigations under or campus codes. Unlike K-12, where safety imperatives dominate, university expulsions balance due process with institutional policies, but both levels prioritize removal for behaviors indicating irreparable risk or dishonesty.

Policy Mechanisms like Zero Tolerance

Zero tolerance policies in education function as rigid enforcement mechanisms that mandate predetermined disciplinary consequences, such as expulsion, for specific violations without allowances for . Enacted primarily to immediate threats to school safety, these policies require automatic referral to expulsion processes upon detection of offenses like possession of , illegal drugs, or weapons on campus. The foundational federal mechanism emerged with the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994, which conditioned states' receipt of funds on implementing laws requiring local education agencies to expel students for at least one year for bringing a to school, with limited exceptions only for cases involving accidental discharge or non-student possessors. This act standardized expulsion as the default response, compelling states to align district policies accordingly; by 1997, all 50 states had enacted compliant legislation mandating such expulsions. Building on this framework, mechanisms extended to broader categories of prohibited conduct, including assaults on educators or peers, distribution of controlled substances, and in some jurisdictions, chronic or gang-related activities. State laws often specify mandatory minimum expulsion terms—typically one —and integrate reporting requirements to for felonious acts, thereby linking school discipline to processes. For example, under mechanisms in states like and , school administrators must initiate expulsion hearings within days of a verified violation, with policies prohibiting progressive interventions like warnings or counseling for zero-tolerance offenses. District-level implementation typically involves codified handbooks listing trigger offenses, automated documentation of incidents, and oversight by superintendents who can approve alternatives like placement in disciplinary programs only after minimum expulsion periods. These structures aim to eliminate variability in enforcement, ensuring uniform application across demographics and incidents to prioritize rapid threat neutralization. Variations in zero tolerance mechanisms reflect federal mandates adapted to local contexts, with some states incorporating flexibility for non-violent infractions while retaining strictness for safety-critical ones. For instance, the federal Improving America's Schools Act of 1994 reinforced GFSA by extending zero tolerance to drug possession, requiring comparable expulsion durations. In practice, these policies operate through multi-step protocols: incident verification by school resource officers or administrators, parental notification within 24-48 hours, and expedited hearings before a disciplinary panel, often culminating in expulsion orders enforceable district-wide. Empirical tracking of compliance, such as U.S. Department of Education reports, indicates that from 1997 to 2000, firearm-related expulsions under GFSA averaged over 3,000 annually, demonstrating the mechanism's scale in prompting removals. While designed for deterrence through certainty of severe outcomes, the policies' inflexibility—eschewing individualized assessments—has been a defining operational feature, influencing over 90% of U.S. school districts by the early 2000s.

Procedural Framework

Investigation and Decision-Making

The investigation of potential student expulsion typically commences immediately following a reported incident involving serious misconduct, such as , drug possession, or weapons violations, which school policies deem grounds for removal. School administrators, often or a designated disciplinarian, conduct a preliminary assessment to determine if the allegation warrants further action, including gathering initial statements from witnesses, victims, and the accused student. This phase emphasizes collecting objective evidence, such as surveillance footage, physical items, or written reports, while adhering to federal requirements under the 14th Amendment, which mandate notice of charges and an opportunity to respond before significant deprivation of educational access. In public schools, temporary suspension may precede formal investigation for immediate safety, limited to 10 days without a full hearing per Supreme Court precedent in Goss v. Lopez (1975), but expulsions demand more rigorous scrutiny to avoid reversal in court. Formal investigation follows, involving interviews with all relevant parties, review of prior disciplinary records, and consideration of mitigating factors like student intent or disabilities. Policies require impartiality, with investigators documenting findings in a report recommending expulsion or alternatives; for instance, Los Angeles Unified School District guidelines stipulate that recommendations must stem from deliberative, -based probes completed promptly. Parents or guardians receive written notice detailing charges, , and hearing rights, typically within days of the incident. Students may inspect , question witnesses, and present rebuttals, though representation by counsel is not universally required and varies by state— mandates it for expulsion hearings, while federal minima suffice informal confrontation in many jurisdictions. Decision-making vests in a hearing officer, superintendent, or school board, who evaluate the investigation's totality against policy thresholds, prioritizing school safety and behavioral patterns over rehabilitation in zero-tolerance frameworks. Hearings, often held within 10-20 school days, resemble administrative reviews rather than trials, focusing on preponderance of evidence rather than beyond . Outcomes include expulsion duration—ranging from semester-long to indefinite—with written decisions citing specific violations and appeal options; courts uphold these if fundamentally fair, reversing only procedural lapses like denied rebuttal opportunities. In higher education, processes align similarly but incorporate institutional codes, often with faculty panels assessing alongside conduct. Empirical reviews indicate decisions hinge on documented severity, with 70-80% of expulsion recommendations upheld post-hearing in districts enforcing structured protocols.

Due Process and Appeals

In public schools within the , due process protections for students facing expulsion stem from the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee against deprivation of property or liberty without of law, recognizing public education as a protected interest. The landmark decision in Goss v. Lopez (1975) established that students are entitled to notice of charges and an opportunity to be heard before imposition of suspensions exceeding ten days or expulsions, with the Court emphasizing that "students facing temporary suspension have interests qualifying for protection of the ." For expulsions, which constitute permanent exclusion, procedures typically require more rigorous safeguards, including written notice detailing the alleged violations, a formal hearing before an impartial decision-maker, presentation of evidence by the school, and the student's right to respond, cross-examine witnesses, and in some cases, representation by counsel. These elements aim to prevent arbitrary decisions, though courts have held that full evidentiary trials akin to criminal proceedings are not required, balancing educational efficiency with fairness. State laws and district policies elaborate on these minima; for instance, in , expelled students receive written notice of charges and may request a hearing within five days, where they can present evidence and call witnesses. In cases involving students with disabilities under the (IDEA), additional manifestations determinations assess whether misconduct relates to the disability, potentially altering expulsion outcomes. Private schools, lacking constitutional mandates, rely on contractual derived from enrollment agreements or handbooks, which may promise hearings but often permit broader discretion without judicial oversight. Appeals processes provide a mechanism for review, typically beginning with an internal administrative appeal to the principal, superintendent, or district board within specified timelines, such as 20 days in public schools. Hearings at this stage may involve transcripts from the initial proceeding and arguments on procedural errors, evidentiary sufficiency, or mitigating factors, with decisions often final unless appealed to state authorities or courts via administrative review or writ of mandate. In , for example, county boards of education hear expulsion appeals filed within 30 days, focusing on whether the governing board abused discretion or violated procedures. Judicial appeals succeed primarily on showing substantial procedural flaws, not mere disagreement with outcomes, as courts defer to educational judgments absent clear legal error. In higher education, public institutions afford similar for expulsions, often through student conduct codes mandating pre-deprivation hearings with notice, evidence review, and advisor presence, though accused students in cases have faced scrutiny for adequacy amid evolving federal guidance. Private colleges provide process via internal policies, with appeals to deans or panels, but limited external recourse unless contract breaches occur. Empirical analyses indicate that robust correlates with fewer erroneous expulsions, yet implementation varies, with some districts criticized for perfunctory hearings that fail to meet Goss standards.

Empirical Impacts

Consequences for Expelled Students

Expelled students often encounter barriers to reenrollment in alternative educational settings, such as continuation high schools or community programs, leading to prolonged educational disruptions. Empirical analyses indicate that expulsion correlates with diminished academic performance, including lower test scores and grade repetition, as the removal from structured learning environments exacerbates skill gaps. Longitudinal data from reveal that expelled students exhibit a statistically significant increase in high school dropout rates compared to non-expelled peers, with the effect persisting after controlling for prior behavioral issues. Behavioral trajectories frequently deteriorate post-expulsion, with elevated risks of in misconduct and disconnection from prosocial networks. links school expulsion to heightened involvement in the system, including earlier onset of convictions; for example, students experiencing multiple exclusions face odds of first conviction up to five years sooner than those without. This pathway reflects causal mechanisms where expulsion severs access to supervision and interventions, fostering environments conducive to delinquency. Long-term socioeconomic outcomes are adversely affected, with expelled students facing reduced that translates to lower lifetime earnings and higher . Exclusionary discipline contributes to and dropout, imposing economic costs through delayed workforce entry; one analysis estimates state-level losses exceeding $68 million annually from associated retention effects alone. Additionally, mental health sequelae include persistent depression into adulthood, as evidenced by cohort studies tracking disciplined youth. These impacts underscore expulsion's role in perpetuating cycles of disadvantage, though individual resilience factors may mitigate effects in select cases.

Benefits for School Environment and Peers

Expulsion of students engaging in severe or chronic disruptions, such as , threats, or persistent defiance, reduces interruptions and fosters a more orderly for peers. By permanently removing such individuals, schools minimize the diversion of instructional time and resources otherwise spent managing conflicts, allowing teachers to focus on educational delivery. Empirical analysis from data indicates that the suspension—analogous to expulsion in effect for persistent cases—of disruptive peers correlates with improved achievement among non-suspended students, with benefits equivalent to shifting a student from the 50th to the 53rd percentile in performance, particularly for low-income, , English language learners, and subgroups who face higher exposure to such peers. This peer benefit extends to behavioral outcomes, as the absence of antisocial influences curtails the normalization of misconduct and reduces secondary victimization. Studies confirm that disruptive students negatively affect classmates' focus and engagement, with removal alleviating these externalities and promoting prosocial norms among remaining pupils. For example, research highlights that non-misbehaving students experience enhanced learning conditions when persistently troublesome peers are excluded, countering arguments that exclusionary measures solely harm without compensatory gains for the collective environment. In jurisdictions applying expulsion judiciously for grave offenses, schools report qualitative improvements in overall perceptions and reduced among peers, as the causal elimination of high-risk actors prevents escalation of threats or assaults. While broader zero-tolerance critiques dominate progressive-leaning reviews from organizations like the Learning Policy Institute, peer-reviewed evidence underscores targeted expulsions' utility in safeguarding the educational trajectory of compliant students against spillover effects from a minority's actions.

Controversies and Debates

Critiques of Expulsion Practices

Critics contend that expulsion practices, often enforced through zero-tolerance policies originating in the , fail to deter or enhance school safety, instead perpetuating cycles of exclusion without addressing underlying behavioral causes. Empirical analyses, including a 2021 study of public schools, demonstrate that out-of-school suspensions correlate with subsequent declines in attendance and academic performance for affected students, while yielding no measurable improvements in peer outcomes or overall . Similarly, a of 22 studies found consistent negative associations between suspensions and student achievement, even after accounting for preexisting differences in behavior. Expulsion is criticized for amplifying long-term harms, including elevated dropout rates and entry into the system, as exclusion disrupts educational continuity and social supports without rehabilitative alternatives. Longitudinal data from indicate that adolescents in schools with higher suspension rates face substantially increased odds of adult arrests, suggesting that punitive removal fosters rather than resolves antisocial trajectories. Researchers argue this "school-to-prison pipeline" dynamic arises because expulsions prioritize short-term removal over interventions like counseling, which shows better mitigate . Broader critiques target the spillover effects on environments, where pervasive expulsion regimes erode trust and academic engagement for all students. Non-expelled pupils in districts with stringent exclusionary policies exhibit lower scores, per analyses of federal Civil Data Collection, implying that the threat of expulsion undermines collective learning climates. A 2024 study further revealed that zero-tolerance enforcement escalates overall misbehavior rates, as rigid responses to minor infractions alienate students and fail to teach self-regulation. Proponents of reform, drawing from multidisciplinary reviews, assert that expulsion's inefficacy stems from its disregard for contextual factors like trauma or developmental needs, advocating evidence-based alternatives such as that reduce by 20-50% in controlled trials. These arguments, while supported by observational data, have faced scrutiny for potentially underemphasizing behavioral accountability in favor of systemic critiques, particularly in sources affiliated with advocacy-oriented institutions.

Defenses and Evidence of Efficacy

Proponents of expulsion in educational settings argue that it serves as a critical mechanism for safeguarding the by excising students whose persistent disruptions—such as , threats, or chronic defiance—impose externalities on peers and staff. By removing such individuals, schools can allocate resources more equitably toward instruction rather than , thereby upholding the primary mission of as a structured pursuit of knowledge for compliant students. This perspective aligns with that unchecked misbehavior erodes instructional time and instills , which expulsion directly counters by restoring focus and security; for example, in environments with high rates, failure to expel repeat offenders risks normalizing disorder, as by administrator reports from urban districts where targeted removals correlated with perceived improvements in daily operations. Empirical evidence supporting efficacy often derives from peer effects studies, which quantify how disruptive classmates impair non-disruptors' outcomes. Exposure to disruptive peers in elementary school has been shown to reduce future earnings by approximately 3% per affected student by ages 24-28, with each year of exposure costing up to $80,000 in lifetime productivity losses, underscoring the long-term societal benefits of early intervention like expulsion. Similarly, introducing potentially disruptive children into classrooms lowers peers' by 1.7–2.3% of a standard deviation, particularly for those with behavioral diagnoses, implying that their removal could yield corresponding gains in test scores and engagement. Direct assessments of expulsion's school-level impacts reveal benefits for remaining students in specific contexts. A 2021 analysis of district data found that higher rates of peer suspensions—serving as proxies for removing disruptors—positively linked to improved math achievement trajectories among non-suspended students, attributing this to diminished interruptions and enhanced instructional focus. Disruptive behaviors broadly contribute to lost instructional time, reduced engagement, and heightened stress, with removal theoretically mitigating these by fostering a conducive to learning; observational data from schools implementing stricter policies post-1990s violence spikes noted declines in reported incidents, though multifactorial. Such findings counter critiques from sources like advocacy groups, which often prioritize individual harms over aggregate school improvements and may reflect institutional preferences for non-exclusionary alternatives despite limited comparative rigor. While meta-analyses predominantly highlight risks to expelled students, defenses emphasize that efficacy metrics should prioritize net gains, as zero-tolerance frameworks demonstrably deterred severe offenses in implementation eras, with violence rates dropping 50% from peaks amid expanded expulsion authority. This body of work, though contested by bias-prone academic narratives favoring restorative approaches, supports expulsion's role in causal chains where removal prevents escalation, benefiting the 95%+ of students unaffected by chronic issues.

Disparities and Causal Factors

Observed Demographic Patterns

In the United States, empirical data from the Department of Education's Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) for the 2017-18 school year indicate that students, comprising 15.1% of total enrollment, were expelled at rates exceeding twice their proportional share of the student population. Similarly, Native American students experienced expulsion rates 2.0 times higher than students, while students faced rates 1.3 times higher, based on analyses of CRDC and other federal datasets. These patterns persist in more recent data; for instance, during the 2018-20 period, expulsion rates per 1,000 students varied significantly by , with rates for students notably higher than for or Asian students, though exact figures for expulsions remain lower overall than for suspensions (e.g., 0.7 per 1,000 for /Latino students). Gender disparities are pronounced, with students expelled at rates approximately 2-3 times higher than students across racial groups. For example, in 2017-18, males exhibited the highest risk, with suspension and expulsion rates reflecting broader disciplinary exclusion patterns where boys accounted for the majority of incidents. Intersectional effects amplify these trends: girls faced elevated risks compared to girls, with and Native American girls showing the highest suspension and expulsion probabilities among females. Students with disabilities also demonstrate disproportionate expulsion rates, receiving discipline at levels 2-4 times higher than non-disabled peers, even after accounting for enrollment shares. In 2020-21, amid hybrid learning disruptions, these patterns intensified for Black students and those with disabilities, with federal data confirming sustained overrepresentation in exclusionary actions. Limited international data, such as from UK exclusion statistics, mirror U.S. trends with higher rates among boys and certain ethnic minorities (e.g., Black Caribbean students), though comprehensive cross-national expulsion demographics remain sparse compared to suspension metrics.

Behavioral and Structural Explanations

Empirical research identifies differences in student conduct as a primary behavioral explanation for demographic disparities in school expulsions, with Black students exhibiting higher rates of prior problematic behaviors that predict disciplinary outcomes. Analysis of the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-Kindergarten Cohort (ECLS-K) data reveals that the racial gap in suspension rates—31% for Black students versus 11% for White students—is fully eliminated when controlling for pre-school-entry problem behaviors assessed via teacher and parent reports, indicating that elevated misconduct, rather than bias, drives the disparity. These behaviors include aggression, hyperactivity, and non-compliance, which show persistent racial differences from early childhood and correlate directly with later expulsions for serious infractions like violence or disruption. The Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study (FFCWS) similarly attributes 9% to 24% of the Black-White suspension gap to such behavioral differences, measured prospectively to minimize retrospective bias in reporting. Student attitudes toward aggression and self-reported involvement in high-risk activities further support behavioral causation, as adolescents report higher frequencies of fighting, , and rule-breaking, which align with objective referral patterns for objective offenses. However, some self-report studies find gaps persisting after behavioral controls, potentially due to underreporting or unmeasured severity differences, though longitudinal designs prioritizing prior conduct provide stronger causal evidence against over-punishment claims. These findings counter prevalent narratives in emphasizing , as early and consistent behavioral indicators suggest causal roots in individual and familial factors like practices or cultural norms endorsing defiance, rather than post-hoc educator . Structural explanations focus on institutional and environmental factors amplifying behavioral risks or responses, including between-school sorting where and low-income students concentrate in high-poverty urban schools with elevated overall and thus higher expulsion thresholds. The FFCWS analysis estimates this sorting accounts for 21% of the Black-White gap, driven by racial (5%) and socioeconomic (15%) composition effects that foster disruptive peer environments and strain administrative resources. State-level policies, such as zero-tolerance mandates or funding disparities, also contribute by standardizing severe responses in under-resourced districts serving minority populations, where community violence and family instability indirectly heighten infraction rates. Differential school processing—harsher penalties for equivalent infractions—represents another structural channel, with some models attributing up to 46% of gaps to varying educator responses, potentially influenced by implicit biases or cultural mismatches between predominantly teaching staffs and minority students. Yet, evidence for this is contested; rigorous controls for behavior often diminish apparent bias effects, and studies like ECLS-K find no residual disparity, suggesting structural amplification occurs mainly through policy rigidity rather than discriminatory intent. Academic sources frequently amplify bias interpretations despite such data, reflecting institutional tendencies to prioritize equity narratives over behavioral empirics. Overall, while structural elements like sorting causally upstream behavioral issues via concentrated , they explain less of the direct variance in expulsions than documented conduct differences.

Variations by Jurisdiction

United States

In the , authority over school expulsions resides primarily with state and local education agencies, as there is no federal to , though states generally guarantee free public through their constitutions or statutes. Expulsions, defined as the permanent or long-term removal of a student from regular schooling, are reserved for severe violations such as bringing weapons to school, assault, drug possession, or repeated disruptive behavior, often requiring a formal hearing and evidence of threat to safety. Federal law influences practices indirectly: the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994 mandates a one-year expulsion for firearms possession on campus to qualify for federal funding, while the (IDEA) provides additional safeguards for students with disabilities, limiting removals beyond 10 days without manifestation determinations linking behavior to their condition. Procedural due process for expulsions stems from the Supreme Court's ruling in Goss v. Lopez (1975), which extended Fourteenth Amendment protections to students facing suspensions of 10 days or more, requiring oral or written notice of charges, an explanation of evidence, and an opportunity for the student to present their side before removal. For expulsions, states typically mandate more robust processes, including formal hearings before an impartial officer or board, representation by counsel or parents, witness testimony, and appeals to state education departments or courts; failure to provide these can render expulsions void. Zero-tolerance policies, proliferating in the 1990s amid school violence concerns like the 1999 Columbine shooting, standardized mandatory expulsions for specified offenses but faced criticism for rigidity, prompting reforms in over 20 states by 2018 to prioritize alternatives like for non-violent infractions. Nationally, expulsions affect a small fraction of students but vary by offense severity; in the 2011–12 school year, approximately 3.5 million K-12 public school students—about 7%—experienced out-of-school suspensions or expulsions, with expulsions comprising roughly 0.2–0.5% annually based on Civil Rights Data Collection figures, concentrated in high schools for weapons or violence. Rates peaked around 2010 under zero-tolerance expansion but declined post-2014 amid equity-focused reforms, dropping to under 1% by 2020–21 amid disruptions, though post-2022 rebounds occurred in states reporting increased disruptions. Demographic patterns show Black students, 15% of enrollment, accounting for 39% of suspensions and higher expulsion risks, often attributed in peer-reviewed analyses to behavioral factors like offense rates rather than solely bias, though enforcement discretion varies. State laws exhibit significant variation: , for instance, prohibits expulsions for willful defiance since 2014 and limits them for younger students, emphasizing rehabilitation, while permits broader discretion for disruptions and saw expulsion rates above national averages pre-reform. About 16 states restrict expulsions for grades K-3 or minor offenses, and 26 allow them for subjective "willful defiance," though recent legislation in states like and has reinstated stricter measures post-pandemic to address rising violence, including mandatory expulsions for assaults on staff. Federal oversight via the Department of Education's monitors disparities but does not dictate state policies, leaving implementation to local districts with reporting requirements under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.

United Kingdom

In the , permanent exclusion from school—equivalent to expulsion in other systems—is a disciplinary measure applied by headteachers for serious or persistent breaches of school behavior policies, primarily in state-funded primary and secondary schools. The process is governed by statutory guidance from the (DfE) in , which emphasizes that exclusions must be lawful, reasonable, and fair, and cannot be used punitively for academic underperformance, disabilities, or special educational needs (SEN) that the school cannot accommodate without prior assessment. Headteachers hold the authority to initiate permanent exclusions, followed by review by the school's within 15 school days (or 10 for pupils with SEN under certain provisions), with parents able to appeal to an independent review panel that can uphold, overturn, or recommend reinstatement with compensation. Permanent exclusions in totaled 10,900 during the 2023/24 , marking a 16% increase from 9,400 in 2022/23 and reflecting a broader upward trend post-2021/22, when rates had dipped amid disruptions and interim guidance discouraging exclusions. The exclusion rate stood at approximately 0.10 per 100 pupils overall, with secondary schools accounting for the majority (rate of 0.24 per 100 pupils) and pupils facing the highest incidence at 0.15 per 100. Persistent disruptive behavior remains the leading recorded reason, cited in over 40% of cases, followed by /threatening behavior (around 20%) and physical assaults against pupils (15-20%), underscoring exclusions' role in addressing behavioral disruptions rather than mere policy infractions. Education policy is devolved across the , leading to variations: emphasizes restorative approaches with fewer permanent exclusions (around 100 annually, focused on safety risks), prioritizes inclusion via managed moves before exclusion, and [Northern Ireland](/page/Northern Ireland) aligns closely with England's framework but reports lower rates (under 200 per year). DfE data collection excludes private schools and alternative provisions, potentially understating totals, while appeals overturn about 20-30% of exclusions annually, often due to procedural errors rather than substantive reversal of behavioral judgments. Excluded pupils must receive full-time from day 6 of exclusion, typically via pupil referral units, though capacity constraints and post-exclusion outcomes—such as higher risks of and criminal involvement—highlight ongoing challenges in systemic support.

Other Selected Countries

In , provincial legislation governs school expulsions, with 's Education Act authorizing school boards to expel students for serious offenses such as uttering threats, possession of weapons, or trafficking drugs, following a hearing process that includes parental notification and appeals to a provincial . Expulsions may be indefinite or conditional, with alternatives like counseling mandated in some cases; in 2021-2022, school boards reported varying suspension rates from 0.28% to 6.09% of students, while expulsion data per board showed low absolute numbers, often under 10 annually for larger districts. Disparities exist, with Black students in twice as likely to be suspended as white peers, attributed by some studies to behavioral patterns rather than alone, though official data lacks race-based tracking. Australia's expulsion practices differ by state, emphasizing progressive discipline before permanent removal; for instance, in public schools, principals may recommend expulsion for violent acts or drug offenses after internal reviews, with the Department of approving final decisions, often leading to placement in programs. Nationally, about 4% of public school students face suspension or expulsion annually, with a longitudinal study of 72,000 New South Wales students from 2010-2020 finding 19% experienced at least one such exclusion, linked to repeated disruptions correlating with lower academic outcomes. In , expulsions—defined as permanent removal from all government schools for 6-18 months or indefinitely—apply to severe breaches like , with 2022 data showing exclusions rising amid post-pandemic behavioral increases, though rates remain below 1% overall. In Japan, expulsions (taiko) are reserved for egregious violations such as repeated violence or criminal acts, constituting permanent dismissal under the School Education Act, enforced by municipal education boards after consultations emphasizing rehabilitation over exclusion due to cultural norms prioritizing group harmony. Such measures are rare, with no national expulsion rate exceeding 0.1% in recent decades per Ministry of Education reports, as schools favor suspensions (up to several weeks) or counseling for most infractions; instead, "school refusal" (futoko) affects 1-2% of students annually, often unaddressed by expulsion to avoid stigmatization, though critics argue this enables persistent disruption without accountability.

References

  1. https://education.mn.gov/MDE/fam/disc/exp/
  2. https://www.azleg.gov/ars/15/00841.htm
  3. https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title53G/Chapter8/53G-8-S205.html
  4. https://www.asseltalaw.com/blog/2017/01/what-reasons-can-cause-a-school-to-expel-a-student/
  5. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4028069/
  6. https://www.floriolaw.com/education-law/handling-student-discipline-and-expulsion-legal-guidelines-for-school-districts/
  7. https://safesupportivelearning.ed.gov/sites/default/files/discipline-compendium/New%2520York%2520School%2520Discipline%2520Laws%2520and%2520Regulations.pdf
  8. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12291156/
  9. https://sdp.cepr.harvard.edu/blog/long-term-impacts-school-suspension-adult-crime
  10. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/crdc-school-suspension-report
  11. https://www.justice4all.org/what-we-do/youth-family-schools/know-your-rights-expulsions/
  12. https://ctlawhelp.org/en/school-expulsions-child-expelled
  13. https://crdc.communities.ed.gov/sites/default/files/2024-12/DISC%2520Module-Student%2520Discipline%2520%2528Suspension%252C%2520Expulsion%252C%2520Corporal%2520Punishment%2529_0.pdf
  14. https://supportiveschooldiscipline.org/expulsion/
  15. https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/190291/how-did-medieval-universities-discipline
  16. https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/fires-guide-due-process-and-campus-justice
  17. https://www.apmreports.org/story/2016/08/25/two-centuries-of-school-discipline
  18. https://www.sutori.com/en/story/history-of-discipline-in-american-public-schooling--2Q1amgz3X5qVUrraXs2GA4wu
  19. https://www.jstor.org/stable/203666
  20. https://www.findlaw.com/education/student-conduct-and-discipline/school-discipline-history.html
  21. https://steinhardt.nyu.edu/metrocenter/politics-not-pedagogy-origin-story-principals-suspension-nyc-schools
  22. https://www.waldenu.edu/online-doctoral-programs/doctor-of-education/resource/how-school-disciplinary-policies-have-changed-over-the-years
  23. https://www.ecs.org/a-look-at-the-history-of-state-school-safety-legislation-in-the-last-2-decades/
  24. https://www.nassp.org/publication/principal-leadership/volume-16-2015-2016/principal-leadership-september-2015/zero-tolerance/
  25. https://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/crisscross/vol4/iss1/7/
  26. https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=28A.600.015
  27. https://legis.la.gov/legis/Law.aspx?d=81024
  28. https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/statute.aspx?id=53887
  29. https://www.bestcolleges.com/blog/what-to-do-expelled-college/
  30. https://essayshark.com/blog/7-mistakes-that-can-get-you-expelled-from-university/
  31. https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/due-process-college-campuses
  32. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/2020/07/Guidance.Gun-Free-Schools-Act.pdf
  33. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/weapons-choice-zero-tolerance-school-discipline-policies-and
  34. https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1141&context=elj
  35. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314858040_The_History_of_Zero_Tolerance_in_American_Public_Schooling
  36. https://www.apa.org/pubs/info/reports/zero-tolerance.pdf
  37. https://www.vera.org/publications/a-generation-later-what-weve-learned-about-zero-tolerance-in-schools
  38. https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/news-insights/student-discipline-and-expulsion-what-holds-up-in-court.html
  39. https://journals.library.wustl.edu/urbanlaw/article/7802/galley/24635/view/
  40. http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/dueprocesstudents.htm
  41. https://sites.law.duke.edu/childedlaw/schooldiscipline/attorneys/advice/shortterm/
  42. https://crla.org/get-help/k-12-education/school-discipline/know-your-rights-school-discipline
  43. https://www.wklaw.com/student-rights-in-california-school-expulsion-proceedings-what-parents-need-to-know/
  44. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2061&context=wmborj
  45. https://www.pps.net/cms/lib/OR01913224/Centricity/Domain/5007/EXPULSION_PROCEDURES.pdf
  46. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj/vol32/iss2/3/
  47. https://www.studentdisciplinedefense.com/school-litigation-unfair-expulsion-or-suspension
  48. https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/131/3/e1000/30944/Out-of-School-Suspension-and-Expulsion
  49. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/419/565/
  50. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1974/73-898
  51. https://safesupportivelearning.ed.gov/discipline-compendium?state=florida&sub_category=Due%2520Process
  52. https://disabilityrightsaz.org/resource/due-process-protections-from-formal-discipline-for-students-with-disabilities/
  53. https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/due-process-and-school-suspension-or-expulsion.html
  54. https://www.tsiglerlaw.com/blog/what-to-do-if-your-child-is-expelled-from-school-in-new-york/
  55. https://thehullfirmllc.com/2024/12/20/how-to-appeal-a-school-expulsion-decision/
  56. https://www.sccoe.org/supoffice/student-appeals/Pages/Expulsion-Appeals.aspx
  57. https://fordhamlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/92_Nov_Soloff-767-809.pdf
  58. https://www.air.org/sites/default/files/2021-08/NYC-Suspension-Effects-Behavioral-Academic-Outcomes-August-2021.pdf
  59. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0738059322001213
  60. https://csgjusticecenter.org/publications/breaking-schools-rules/
  61. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666353823000097
  62. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8277150/
  63. https://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/reports/the-economic-effects-of-exclusionary-discipline-on-grade-retention-and-high-school-dropout/
  64. https://news.uark.edu/articles/72805/school-suspensions-and-expulsions-can-lead-to-a-lifetime-of-depression
  65. https://direct.mit.edu/edfp/article/16/3/443/97124/Peer-Disruption-and-Learning-Links-between
  66. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-does-the-research-say-about-how-to-reduce-student-misbehavior-in-schools/
  67. https://www.shankerinstitute.org/blog/new-research-school-discipline
  68. https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/commentary/do-suspensions-improve-academic-achievement-non-suspended-students
  69. https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/student-suspensions-have-negative-consequences-according-nyc-study
  70. https://edsource.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Noltemeyer_Ward_2015_Meta-Analysis.pdf
  71. https://www.educationnext.org/proving-school-to-prison-pipeline-stricter-middle-schools-raise-risk-of-adult-arrests/
  72. https://www.forbes.com/sites/nickmorrison/2024/05/15/zero-tolerance-policies-in-school-promote-further-misbehavior-study-finds/
  73. https://edalliesmn.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/School-Discipline-Review.pdf
  74. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED604960.pdf
  75. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/254578.pdf
  76. https://faculty.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/scarrell/DV_Long-run.pdf
  77. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272775715000059
  78. https://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/module/beh1/cresource/q1/p01/
  79. https://repository.law.uic.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1039&context=lawreview
  80. https://www.thinkacademy.ca/blog/public-schools-disruptive-students-behavioral-correction/
  81. https://www.ed.gov/media/document/crdc-exclusionary-school-disciplinepdf-21414.pdf
  82. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8133760/
  83. https://www.kidsdata.org/topic/2193/expulsions-race/table
  84. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-18-258
  85. https://genderjusticeandopportunity.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/National-Data-on-School-Discipline-by-Race-and-Gender.pdf
  86. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/disparities-bullying-and-corporal-punishment-the-latest-federal-discipline-data/2023/11
  87. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0190740925004918
  88. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047235214000105
  89. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0190740917300105
  90. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11973886/
  91. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12276934/
  92. https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/commentary/lets-talk-about-discipline-and-disparate-impact-again
  93. https://www.ecs.org/50-state-comparison-school-discipline-policies/
  94. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/raceindicators/indicator_rda.asp
  95. https://phys.org/news/2019-05-legal-years-state-tolerance-school.html
  96. https://stateline.org/2023/09/25/shaken-by-post-pandemic-disruptions-some-states-take-a-harder-line-on-school-discipline/
  97. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/school-exclusion
  98. https://www.gov.uk/school-behaviour-exclusions/exclusions
  99. https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/suspensions-and-permanent-exclusions-in-england/2023-24
  100. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66be0d92c32366481ca4918a/Suspensions_and_permanent_exclusions_guidance.pdf
  101. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03054985.2024.2376609
  102. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/suspensions-and-permanent-exclusions-in-england-2023-to-2024
  103. http://www.ontario.ca/page/school-suspensions-and-expulsions
  104. https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/2d2c39a7-9318-4db1-8555-a5d105e48619
  105. https://news.westernu.ca/2022/03/expert-insight-adversity-impacting-disproportionate-suspensions-of-black-and-indigenous-students/
  106. https://theconversation.com/we-tracked-72-000-nsw-public-school-students-over-a-decade-and-found-19-had-been-suspended-or-expelled-267001
  107. https://www.data.gov.au/data/dataset/proportion-of-student-population-suspended-excluded-or-expelled
  108. https://data.sa.gov.au/data/dataset/suspensions-exclusions-and-expulsions-by-year-level
  109. http://www.aba.ne.jp/~sugita/22e2.htm
  110. https://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/hakusho/html/hpac200101/hpac200101_2_079.html
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.