Hubbry Logo
School disciplineSchool disciplineMain
Open search
School discipline
Community hub
School discipline
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
School discipline
School discipline
from Wikipedia
A Harper's Weekly cover from 1898 shows a caricature of school discipline.
This Punishment Book, from the school attended by Henry Lawson, is one of the earliest surviving examples of this type of record.

School discipline relates to actions taken by teachers or school organizations toward students when their behavior disrupts the ongoing educational activity or breaks a rule created by the school. Discipline can guide the children's behavior or set limits to help them learn to take better care of themselves, other people and the world around them.[1]

School systems set rules, and if students break these rules, they are subject to discipline. These rules may, for example, define the expected standards of school uniforms, punctuality, social conduct, and work ethic. The term "discipline" is applied to the action that is the consequence of breaking the rules. The aim of discipline is to set limits restricting certain behaviors or attitudes that are seen as harmful or against school policies, educational norms, school traditions, etc.[1] The focus of discipline is shifting, and alternative approaches are emerging due to notably high dropout rates, disproportionate punishment upon minority students, and other educational inequalities.[citation needed]

The purpose of discipline

[edit]

Discipline is a set of consequences determined by the school district to remedy actions taken by a student that are deemed inappropriate. It is sometimes confused with classroom management, but while discipline is one dimension of classroom management, classroom management is a more general term.[2]

Discipline is typically thought to have a positive influence on both the individual as well as the classroom environment. Utilizing disciplinary actions can be an opportunity for the class to reflect and learn about consequences, instill collective values, and encourage behavior that is acceptable for the classroom. Recognition of the diversity of values within communities can increase understanding and tolerance of different disciplinary techniques.[3] In particular, moderate interventions such as encouraging positive corrections of questionable behavior inside the classroom by clearly showing the boundaries and making it clear that the behavior is unacceptable, as opposed to more severe punishments outside the classroom such as detention, suspension, or expulsion, can promote learning and deter future misbehavior.[4][5] Learning to "own" one's bad behavior is also thought to contribute to positive growth in social emotional learning.[6]

Theory

[edit]

School discipline practices are generally informed by theory from psychologists and educators. There are a number of theories to form a comprehensive discipline strategy for an entire school or a particular class.

  • Positive approach is grounded in teachers' respect for students. This approach instills in students a sense of responsibility by using youth/adult partnerships to develop and share clear rules, provide daily opportunities for success, and administer in-school suspension for noncompliant students. Based on Glasser's reality therapy. Research (e.g., Allen) is generally supportive of the PAD program.[7]
  • Teacher effectiveness training differentiates between teacher-owned and student-owned problems, and proposes different strategies for dealing with each. Students are taught problem-solving and negotiation techniques. Researchers (e.g., Emmer and Aussiker) find that teachers like the programme and that their behaviour is influenced by it, but effects on student behaviour remain unclear.[7]
  • Adlerian approaches is an umbrella term for a variety of methods which emphasize understanding the individual's reasons for maladaptive behavior and helping misbehaving students to alter their behavior, whilst at the same time finding ways to get their needs met. Named after psychiatrist Alfred Adler, these approaches have shown some positive effects on self-concept, attitudes, and locus of control, but effects on behavior are inconclusive (Emmer and Aussiker).[7] Not only were the statistics on suspensions and vandalism significant, but also the recorded interview of teachers demonstrates the improvement in student attitude and behaviour, school atmosphere, academic performance, and beyond that, personal and professional growth.[8]
  • Appropriate school learning theory and educational philosophy is a strategy for preventing violence and promoting order and discipline in schools, put forward by educational philosopher Daniel Greenberg[9] and practiced by the Sudbury Valley School.[10][11][12]

Some scholars think students misbehave because of the lack of engagement and stimulation in typical school settings, a rigid definition of acceptable behaviors and a lack of attention and love in a student's personal life. In the United States, scholars have begun to explore alternative explanations for why students are being disciplined, in particular the disproportionate rate of discipline towards African-American and minority students.

  • Lack of engagement and stimulation – students are curious and constantly searching for meaning and stimulation in the school environment. Classes that are too one-dimensional, that fail to involve students sufficiently, are too challenging or are content intensive (leaving little room for discussion and consideration), will not satisfy students' curiosities or needs for authentic intellectual stimulation.[13]
  • A rigid definition of acceptable behavior – Most students, particularly older ones, are asked to sit at their desks for too long and listen, read, and take notes. Teachers who fail to offer opportunities for movement and interpersonal engagement are likelier to have to use strictness and rules to maintain law and order.[13][unreliable source?][5]
  • Lack of attention and love – When students fail to receive the attention that they crave, they are likelier to find other ways to get it, even if it means drawing negative attention to themselves and even negative consequences. The more teachers let their students know how much they care about them and value their work, the likelier they are to respect a teacher's request and conform to their expectation.[13]

Other models include:

Obedience

[edit]

Discipline rooted in obedience centers on valuing hard work, diligence, adherence to authority, and self-discipline.[14] An obedience-based model uses consequences and punishments as deterrents,[15] whereas the responsibility-based model shifts away from using rules, limits, and consequences, as well as punitive measures like detention, suspension, expulsion, and counseling. Students have demonstrated improved academic success and better behavior management in schools with responsibility-centered discipline.[16]

Responsibility

[edit]

Responsibility-centered discipline, also known as responsibility-based discipline, is a classroom-oriented technique that empowers students to find solutions to organizational issues.[17] This approach involves fostering appreciation and warmth among students, embracing their interests, recognizing their efforts, encouraging feedback, achieving consensus on ground rules, and engaging them in rule-making and problem-solving, all while maintaining dignity and well-defined boundaries. Concepts like remorse and empathy are taught through actions like apologies, restitution, or creating action plans. Limits express a teacher's beliefs, demands, and expectations within clear values and goals that help create a learning environment. The essence of responsibility-centered discipline is making choices that embody core values such as integrity, perseverance, respect, and responsibility rather than simply enforcing rules.

Assertive

[edit]

Lee and Marlene Canter developed the assertive discipline model. It blends obedience-based principles with responsibility. In this approach, teachers require all students to consent to a set of rules establishing appropriate and inappropriate behaviors, clarifying the necessary corrections if a student exceeds these limits. Teachers acknowledge repetitive behaviors, maintaining an appreciation of good conduct. Disciplinary action must be applied throughout the classroom so all students believe that the rules matter. Simply offering rewards and consequences is not always sufficient; teachers must earn students' respect and trust.

Assertive discipline attempts to model appropriate behavior for students. Teachers guide students in adhering to behavioral expectations. The Canters emphasize building trust by greeting students, using their names, having one-on-one conversations, acknowledging birthdays and special events, and maintaining communication with parents.[18] The model does not concentrate on individual students. It does not address the root causes of misbehavior, nor is it based on the needs of the students.[18]

Non-corporal forms of disciplinary action

[edit]

Detention

[edit]

Detention, sometimes referred to as DT, is one of the most common punishments in schools in the United States, the Commonwealth of Nations, and some other countries. It requires the student to report to a designated room (typically after the end of the school day, or during lunch or recess period) to complete extra work (such as writing lines or an essay, or the completion of chores). Detention can be supervised by the teacher setting the detention or through a centralised detention system.[19] Detention may require a student to report at a certain time on a non-school day, e.g. "Saturday detention" at some US, UK, and Irish schools (especially for serious offences not quite serious enough for suspension).[20] In UK schools, after-school detention can be held the same day as it is issued without parental consent,[21] and some schools make a detention room available daily, but many will require a student to return to school 1–2 hours after school ends on a specific day, e.g. "Friday Night Detention".[22] Failure to attend detention without a valid excuse can sometimes result in another being added, or a more severe punishment being administered, such as an in school or out of school suspension.

In Germany, detention is less common. In some states like Baden-Württemberg there is detention to rework missed school hours, but in others like Rheinland-Pfalz it is prohibited by law. In schools where some classes are held on Saturdays, pupils may get detention on a Saturday even if it is a non-school day for them.

In China, long-time detention is perhaps less common than in the US, the UK, Ireland, Singapore, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and some other countries. However, short-time detention by the teachers is still common. Teachers may ask the students to do some missed work after school.

In Australia, the school should consider circumstances when giving detentions. For example, in Victoria, it is recommended that no more than half the time for recess is used for detention, that detentions be held at a reasonable time and place, and when students are kept after school, parents should be informed at least the day before detention, and detention should not exceed 45 minutes.[23]

Counseling

[edit]

Counseling is also provided when students will have to see a school counselor (guidance counselor) for misbehavior. The purpose of counseling is to help the student recognize their mistakes and find positive ways to make changes in the student's life. Counseling can also help the student clarify the school's expectations, as well as understand the consequences of failing to meet those standards.

Suspension

[edit]

Suspension or temporary exclusion is a mandatory leave assigned to a student as a form of punishment that can last anywhere from one day to a few weeks, during which the student is not allowed to attend regular lessons. In some US, UK, Australian, and Canadian schools, there are two types of suspension: In-school (ISS, internal exclusion, or isolation) and out-of-school (OSS, off-campus suspension, or external exclusion). In-school suspension means that the student comes to school as usual but must report to and stay in a designated room for the entire school day.[24] Out-of-school suspension means that the student is banned from entering the school grounds, or being near their campus while suspended from school. A student who breaches an out-of-school suspension (by attending the school during their suspension) may be arrested for trespassing, and repeated breaches may lead to expulsion and/or possible criminal penalties. Students are also not allowed to attend after-school activities (such as proms, sporting events, etc.) while suspended from school. Some schools even utilize a loss of privilege policy that prohibits students returning from an out-of-school suspension from participating in the above mentioned school sponsored activities for as long as 2 weeks. [25]

Schools are usually required to notify the student's parents/guardians and sometimes social worker if the suspended student is in special education, and explain the reason for and duration of a suspension. Students involved in physical altercations on campus can be suspended from school for a period of 5 days, while students who throw temper tantrums on campus, direct foul language at school staff members, or engage in verbal altercations with fellow students can be suspended for 3 days.[26] Students are often required to continue to learn and complete assignments during their suspension, sometimes receiving no credit for it. This could include a written essay stating that they will not engage again in the behavior that led to the suspension or journal detailing the reason for the student being suspended from school, which they would be required to hand in to a school administrator upon returning to school following their suspension. Sometimes schools will have meetings with the suspended student, the student's parents, a school administrator, and sometimes a social worker in the case of a special education student to discuss and evaluate the matter following an out-of-school suspension.[26] Studies suggest that school suspension is associated with increased risk of subsequent criminal justice system involvement and lower educational attainment.[27] School suspension can also be associated with psychological distress, and to have a bi-directional link with mental illness.[28] In the United Kingdom, excluded children have been targeted by "county lines" drug traffickers.[29]

Expulsion

[edit]

Expulsion, dismissal, exclusion, withdrawing, or permanent exclusion terminates the student's education. This is the last resort, when all other methods of discipline have failed. However, in extreme situations, it may also be used for an exceptionally serious 'one-off' offense, such as setting fires on campus, the activation of false alarms, or assault and battery against faculty and staff members, killing students or teachers, or school administrators, bomb threats, breaking into classrooms and school offices outside of school hours, and vandalism of school property. Setting off fireworks and firecrackers on campus can result in expulsion as well. [30] Some education authorities have a nominated school in which all excluded students are collected; this typically has a much higher staffing level than mainstream schools. In some US public schools, expulsions are so serious that they require an appearance before the Board of Education or the court system. In the UK, head teachers may make the decision to exclude, but the student's parents have the right of appeal to the local education authority. It was completely banned for compulsory schools in China. This has proved controversial in cases where the head teacher's decision has been overturned (and his or her authority thereby undermined), and there are proposals to abolish the right of appeal. In the United States, 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 limited constitutional due process protections as public educational institutions operate as an extension of state governments. Conversely, with private schools, the student can be expelled for any reason – provided that the expulsion was not "arbitrary and capricious." In Virginia, as long as a private school follows the procedures in its student handbook, a court will likely not view its actions as arbitrary and capricious.[31]

Restorative justice

[edit]

In schools, restorative justice is an offshoot of the model used by some courts and law enforcement; it seeks to repair the harm that has been done by acknowledging the impact on the victim, community, and offender, accepting responsibility for the wrongdoing, and repairing the harm that was caused. Restorative practices can "also include preventive measures designed to build skills and capacity in students as well as adults." Some examples of preventative measures in restorative practices might include teachers and students devising classroom expectations together or setting up community building in the classroom. Restorative justice also focuses on justice as needs and obligations, expands justice as conversations between the offender, victim and school, and recognizes accountability as understanding the impact of actions and repairing the harm. Traditional styles of discipline do not always work well for students across every cultural community. As an alternative to the normative approaches of corporal punishment, detention, counseling, suspension, and expulsion, restorative justice was established to give students a voice in their consequences, as well as an opportunity to make a positive contribution to their community.[32]

Restorative justice typically involves peer-mediation or adult-supervised conversations surrounding a perceived offence. Each student has the ability to contribute to the conversation, the person who has misbehaved has the opportunity not only to give their side of the story but also has a say in their consequence. Consequences defy the traditional methods of punitive punishment and instead give students an opportunity for restoration.[33] Restorative justice focuses on relationship building and the community as a whole over the individual student and their offence, creating a sense that everyone has a part in the community and it is everyone's responsibility to uphold the values of the particular community.[34] This is a method that not only increases an understanding of perceived community values, but is also a method thought to work well in cultures and communities where there is a high value on the community, rather than just on the individual.

In 2012, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights released a report entitled "School Discipline and Disparate Impact," which was somewhat critical of the Department of Education's approach to school discipline.[35]

Corporal punishment

[edit]

Throughout the history of education, the most common means of maintaining discipline in schools was corporal punishment. While a child was in school, a teacher was expected to act as a substitute parent, with many forms of parental discipline or rewards open to them. This often meant that students were commonly chastised with the birch, cane, paddle, strap or yardstick if they did something wrong. Around 69 countries still use school corporal punishment.

Corporal punishment in schools has now disappeared from most Western countries, including all European countries. In the United States, corporal punishment is not used in public schools in 36 states, banned in 33, and permitted in 17, of which only 14 actually have school districts actively administering corporal punishment. Every U.S. state except New Jersey and Iowa permits corporal punishment in private schools, but an increasing number of private schools have abandoned the practice, especially Catholic schools. Thirty-one U.S. states as well as the District of Columbia have banned corporal punishment from public schools, most recently Colorado in 2023. The other 17 states (mostly in the South) continue to allow corporal punishment in public schools. Of the 17 which permit the practice, three – Arizona, North Carolina, Wyoming have no public schools that actually use corporal punishment as of 2023. In North Carolina however, all school districts have banned the practice. Paddling is still used to a significant (though declining) degree in some public schools in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Texas. Private schools in these and most other states may also use it, though many choose not to do so.

A cartoon picture that shows students receiving "Corporal Punishment"

Official corporal punishment, often by caning, remains commonplace in schools in some Asian, African and Caribbean countries.

Most mainstream schools in most other countries retain punishment for misbehavior, but it usually takes non-corporal forms such as detention and suspension.

In China, school corporal punishment was completely banned under the Article 29 of the Compulsory Education Act of the People's Republic of China, but in practice, beating by schoolteachers is still common, especially in rural areas.

In Australia, school corporal punishment has been banned in public schools in all states, but as of 2019, it is still permitted in private schools in Queensland and the Northern Territory.[36]

In the United States

[edit]

Federal level

[edit]

Background

[edit]

In the United States, many of the state and federal laws surrounding school discipline originate from zero-tolerance policies for student misconduct practiced by policy-makers from the 1980s and 1990s.[37] With the increasing use of zero-tolerance policies, by 1997 the federal government was funding the use of police officers in schools, resulting in an increased use of discipline in schools across the country and an influx of students entering the juvenile justice system.[37] By 2000, 41 states had laws in place requiring cases involving students who committed criminal violations in school, like drug possession, to be handled by law enforcement and juvenile courts, instead of the schools themselves.[38] During this time, Black students accounted for over one-third of all corporal punishment cases and in-school and out-of-school suspensions, nearly one-third of all expulsions and school-related arrests, and over one-quarter of all referrals to law enforcement; rates around three times higher than that of white students.[37]

Public schools are prohibited from using disciplinary practices as a form of discrimination.[39] The Education Department's Office for Civil Rights is tasked with deciding whether or not to investigate students' reports of disciplinary racial discrimination.[39] Former United States Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos enacted delays and eliminations of student discipline guidance under the United States Education Department.[39] In 2016, the Obama administration required states to address racial disparities in special education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, but DeVos delayed the implementation of these requirements.[39] In 2014, the United States Department of Justice and the Education Department's Office for Civil Rights issued guidance to reduce racial disparities in suspension and expulsion.[39] In 2019, DeVos defended the Education Department's choice to repeal this guidance.[39]

Student protections

[edit]

Today, schools across the U.S. suspend, expel, and punish Black students at a higher rate than white students.[37] Despite these rates, there are multiple federal laws against racial discrimination in schools.[37] There are two groups for these laws: disparate treatment and disparate impact.[37]

Disparate treatment laws allow students the right to testify against schools and school districts for intentional racial discrimination.[37] Under the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, students who feel they have been intentionally racially discriminated against can testify against their schools or school districts.[37]

Disparate impact laws, including the federal regulations of Title VI and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, allow federal agencies to testify against schools and school districts for policies they have put in place that ultimately result in racial discrimination, regardless of the intent behind the people practicing those policies.[37] Violations of these regulations can cause schools and school districts to lose federal funding.[37]

Mitigation and reform

[edit]

Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports (PBIS) programs examine disciplinary issues, attempt to reduce the severity of punishment for students, and provide increased support for students who have emotional and behavioral disorders.[40] PBIS programs are supported by the United States Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs Technical Assistance Center and have been used by schools across the United States.[40]

Across U.S. states

[edit]
[edit]

Racial disparities in suspension and expulsion vary across the United States, Atlanta, Georgia, Chicago, Illinois, Houston, Texas; and St. Paul. Minnesota has schools and school districts that, on average, suspend Black students at least six times more than white students.[37] A study by the University of Pennsylvania concluded that Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia schools contribute over half of all suspensions and expulsions of Black students in America.[41] In these thirteen states, Black students make up about 24% of the students in public schools, but 48% of suspension cases and 49% of expulsion cases.[41] Today, 19 states allow the use of corporal punishment in schools,[40] including Arkansas, a state that ranks 13th in the country for highest disciplinary disparity between Black and white students.[40]

In the state of New York, black students are suspended at a rate over four times higher than white students; in New York City, this figure increases, with Black students being suspended at a rate over five times higher than white students.[42] Schools in New York suspend nearly one in five Black male high-schoolers.[42] In California, Black males are suspended more frequently than any other racial or gender group, and Black females are the third most often suspended group.[43] Black students with disabilities in California lose about 44 more days of school instruction due to disciplinary consequences than their white peers with disabilities.[43]

Mitigation and reform

[edit]

Schools across the country are making efforts to reform their disciplinary systems and practices to reduce racial disparities. A study in North Carolina found that having Black teachers is associated with lowered amounts of exclusionary discipline for Black students, across all age, gender, and income ranges.[44] To reduce its racial disciplinary disparity, Arkansas' state regulations are beginning to request that school districts make an effort to racially diversify their staff.[40] School disciplinary policies in Arkansas are technically decided by state laws and the Arkansas Department of Education, but schools within Arkansas have some decision-making authority, which allowed them the power to suggest the diversification of their staff, as well as other policies that are being put into place to reduce racialized disciplinary disparities,[40] including but not limited to:

  • Disciplinary punishments permitted for students are required to be written into a school district's policy.[40]
  • In school districts where corporal punishment is used, the district must establish specific policies for when and how to employ it.[40]
  • School districts are required to inform students' parents of disciplinary policies and provide written proof of the existence of said policies.[40] These policies are required to be filed with the Arkansas Department of Education and include due process.[40]
  • All school personnel, including teachers, administrators, volunteers, and all employees are required to undergo student discipline training.[40]

Similarly to Arkansas, schools in Virginia are attempting to improve training for teachers and administrators.[41] In California, multiple school districts have completely eliminated suspensions for Kindergarten through twelfth grade in public schools.[43] The New York State Education Department and the Board of Regents has included out-of-school suspensions in the Every Student Succeeds Act, attempting to hold schools accountable for the suspension rates of different groups of students, this includes Black students' higher suspension rates compared to that of other racial and ethnic groups.[42]

Across school districts

[edit]

Demographics

[edit]

Within the United States of America, urban educational institutions service the largest portion of Black students in primary and secondary education.[45] On a larger scale, urban educational institutions with a predominantly Black student body yield higher rates of punitive disciplinary actions in comparison to institutions with a predominantly white student body.[39] Black students attending urban educational institutions are more likely to receive suspension and to be arrested than white students.[39][46] On a smaller scale, rural school districts with a larger portion of Black students also yield higher rates of punitive disciplinary actions than predominantly white school districts.[47]

County-level

[edit]

Individual school districts within a state have jurisdiction to implement and enforce education-related policies within their educational institutions.[46][48] Dependent on a school district's approach to resolving behavioral conflicts, the disparities between rates and intensity of discipline between white and Black students can intensify or lessen.[46][49] The subjectivity of approach to behavioral policies allows for external factors such as socioeconomic and racial demographic factors to feature into an institution's utilization of disciplinary actions.[46][49]

Truancy
[edit]

An example of the varying racial disparities in discipline across U.S. counties and school districts is the different disciplinary approaches to solving truancy, eg. "any intentional, unjustified, unauthorized, or illegal absence from compulsory education".[50] The Los Angeles County District enacted punitive measures to decrease the rate of absenteeism occurring within the district's educational institutions.[51] It piloted the Abolish Chronic Truancy (ACT) program that would discipline absenteeism through penal punishments for both students and their parental guardians.[51] Punishments for parental guardians include legal prosecution with a maximum penalty of a fine up to $2,500 per child and up to a year sentencing.[51] For students, punishments may be prosecution in juvenile court with potential penalties including fines, probation, community service, and mandated attendance of a truancy education program.[51] Socioeconomic factors—lack of transportation, acting as a caregiver for siblings, etc.-- that affect a student's attendance and likelihood of penal punishments disproportionately affects low-income black students.[52][53]

Another approach that some U.S. school districts have used to reduce truancy is rehabilitating students and accounting for external factors. For example, the office of Alameda County Assistant District Attorney Teresa Drenick within the Alameda County School District has piloted a diversion program to increase attendance.[39] The program addresses students with high absenteeism rates with consistently absent students by providing access to therapy, health services, and resources such as bus passes.[39] The county reports that the program has been "more than 90% successful at getting students back in class", thereby decreasing absenteeism rates.[39]

Students with disabilities

[edit]

The disparity in punitive disciplinary actions between Black and white students is further widened for Black students with disabilities.[54][55] National surveys on disparities in school discipline have found higher rates of suspension among Black students with disabilities.[54][55] From 2014 to 2015, the national average of days lost per 100 enrolled for students with disabilities was 119.0 days for Black students and 43.0 days for white students.[55]

An existent effort to decrease rates of disciplinary actions for Black students with disabilities have examined the effects of same-race teachers within the classroom.[54] For example, from 2014 to 2015, North Carolina had a wider gap in disparities than the national average in which Black students lost 158.3 days per 100 enrolled and white students lost 64.1 days. North Carolina, like many states, has local school districts with a higher percentage of Black staff and teachers than other districts.[55] A study by researchers Constance A. Lindsey and Cassandra M. D. Hart demonstrates that Black females reduced disciplinary rates for Black male students with disabilities by a "2 percentage points to approximately 14 percent" decline.[54] Additionally, students with Black male teachers within the study had a reduced disciplinary rate by "15 to 13 percent".[54] The study suggests that school districts with an increased percentage of Black students may exhibit lower rates of punitive disciplinary actions for Black students with disabilities and have a lessened gap between Black and white students.[54][55]

Within the classroom

[edit]

In the United States, African-American students, particularly boys, are disciplined significantly more often and more severely than any other demographic. This disparity is very well documented and contributes substantially to negative life outcomes for affected students.[56][57] The resulting tendency of minors and young adults from disadvantaged backgrounds to become incarcerated is widely referred to as the "school-to-prison pipeline".[58][59][60]

According to data published by the U.S. Department of Education, African-American students are three times more likely to be suspended and expelled than their white peers.[61] Research overwhelmingly suggests that when given an opportunity to choose among several disciplinary options for a relatively minor offense, teachers and school administrators disproportionately choose more severe punishment for African-American students than for white students for the same offense.[61] Even when controlling factors such as family income, African-American boys are more likely to receive out-of-school suspensions than white boys for the same behavior within the same school.[57][62]

A recent study published by the National Academy of Sciences, using U.S. federal data covering more than 32 million students and around 96,000 schools, showed that "the disciplinary gap between black and white students across five types of disciplinary actions is associated with county-level rates of racial bias."[56] Other high-powered studies have shown "increased racial and gender disproportionality for subjectively defined behaviors in classrooms, and for incidents classified as more severe",[63] and that "Black-White disciplinary gaps . . . emerge as early as in prekindergarten and widen with grade progression."[64] Such disparities in exclusionary forms of discipline have been shown to be mitigated in classrooms run by African-American teachers, with especially strong mitigation of office referrals for subjectively defined behavior such as "willful defiance".[57][65]

When disparities occur within the classroom they are often covert and passive. This means that instead of outwardly discriminating against a student because of their color teachers discreetly give fewer advantages to students of color. Examples of this could include counselors or teachers influencing students of color to take easier classes or to not attend four-year universities, and teachers not learning the correct way to pronounce student names.[66] This can also include white students being given more chances before serious discipline is enacted, such as suspension or expulsion.[67] According to a study published by the Association for Psychological Science, teachers often recognize second offenses in the classroom as the result of a pattern of wrongdoing when it comes to Black students while white students' offenses are often labeled as isolated incidents.[67]

Black girls

[edit]

While it has been proven that black boys in the U.S. tend to be disciplined more often and more severely, evidence also suggests that black girls experience more racial bias in their education.[68][69] A research study conducted by the National Women's Law Center and the Education Trust observed that "Black girls are five times more likely than white girls to be suspended at least once and four times as likely as white girls to be arrested at school."[68] The racial bias is compounded as girls also experience gender bias within the classroom, a phenomenon coined as educational inequality.[68] Based on data published by The National Bureau of Economic Research on the short-term and long-term consequences of teachers' stereotypical biases, it was found that teacher biases have a positive effect on boys' achievements in class but have a negative effect on girls' achievements.[69] This can have long-term consequences for the futures of Black girls as it can prevent them from enrolling in the advanced-level classes that are commonly required for STEM majors in college.[69]

Socioeconomic status

[edit]

Disciplinary methods also vary based on students' socioeconomic status. While high-income students are often reported to receive mild to moderate consequences (e.g. a teacher reprimand or seat reassignment), low-income students are reported to receive more severe consequences, sometimes delivered in a less-than-professional manner (e.g. being yelled at in front of class, being made to stand in the hallway all day, or having their personal belongings searched).[70]

Some researchers argue that zero-tolerance discipline policies in effect criminalize infractions such as dress-code violations or talking back to a teacher, and that these policies disproportionately target disadvantaged students.[58][71]

Implications

[edit]

Due to increased suspension and expulsion rates, black students are losing instructional time by spending more time away from the classroom.[72] Lost instructional time can result in lower retainment levels of educational material, lower graduation rates, and higher drop-out rates.[73] Higher rates of punishment in schools can increase interactions between black students and law enforcement when black students are punished with referrals to law enforcement for disciplinary infractions.[38][58][60] Referrals to law enforcement following the report of a student to a law enforcement agency or officer by a school employee can include citations, tickets, court referrals, and in some cases arrests, though not all referrals lead to arrests.[74] These interactions with the law are a precursor for the school-to-prison pipeline, which disproportionately affects black students.

See also

[edit]

Footnotes

[edit]

Sources

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia
School discipline refers to the rules, evidence-based strategies, and practices applied within educational settings to manage student behavior, encourage self-regulation, and create orderly environments that support academic instruction and safety. Historically, school discipline emphasized corporal punishment, such as caning or switching, which was commonplace from colonial times through much of the 19th and early 20th centuries to enforce compliance and deter misconduct. Over time, methods evolved toward exclusionary measures like suspensions and expulsions, particularly with the rise of zero-tolerance policies in the late 20th century, though empirical analyses indicate that moderately strict enforcement—balancing clear rules with consistent consequences—yields better behavioral and academic outcomes than either overly punitive or permissive approaches. Contemporary practices increasingly incorporate positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS), focusing on proactive teaching of expectations and reinforcement of appropriate conduct, which studies link to reduced disruptions when implemented with fidelity. However, evidence on effectiveness remains mixed: while strict discipline in high-performing charter schools correlates with improved achievement by minimizing chaos, broad reforms reducing suspensions have sometimes failed to curb misbehavior and may amplify offending trajectories for at-risk students. A defining controversy involves racial disparities in discipline rates, with Black students facing higher suspensions for similar infractions like disobedience; yet, longitudinal data reveal that elevated teacher-reported behavioral problems among Black and Hispanic students—often rooted in socioeconomic factors and self-regulation deficits—account for much of the gap, rather than solely adult bias. This underscores causal realities: unchecked disruptions impair learning for all, necessitating discipline that prioritizes empirical outcomes over equity mandates that overlook behavioral antecedents.

Definitions and Purposes

Core Concepts and Definitions

School discipline encompasses the structured approaches used in educational settings to guide student conduct, enforce behavioral standards, and cultivate habits of self-control essential for learning and social integration. It involves establishing clear rules, monitoring compliance, and applying consistent consequences to address deviations, thereby minimizing disruptions and fostering an orderly environment where academic instruction can proceed effectively. This framework draws from the inherent need for authority in collective settings, where unchecked impulses would otherwise undermine group functioning, as evidenced by correlations between firm rule enforcement and higher student achievement rates in longitudinal studies. Key distinctions within school discipline include external versus internal regulation: external discipline relies on teacher-directed interventions, such as verbal corrections or sanctions, to shape immediate behavior, while internal or self-discipline emerges as students internalize norms through repeated exposure and reasoning, enabling autonomous adherence without constant oversight. Preventive strategies, like proactive rule-setting and positive reinforcement, aim to avert misbehavior by building positive habits, contrasting with reactive punitive measures that respond to infractions with penalties proportional to the offense's severity. Empirical analyses highlight that effective discipline balances these elements, prioritizing consistency over severity to promote long-term behavioral adaptation rather than mere suppression. Authority in school discipline derives from the institutional mandate to prepare individuals for societal roles, grounded in the causal link between enforced boundaries and cognitive development; without it, environments devolve into chaos, as observed in comparative data from structured versus lenient systems showing elevated absenteeism and lower test scores in the latter. Concepts like proportionality ensure responses match infractions—minor disruptions warrant mild rebukes, while serious violations, such as violence, justify exclusionary actions like suspension to protect the collective—to avoid escalating conflicts or eroding deterrence. Overall, school discipline functions as a microcosm of broader social order, emphasizing causal accountability where actions predict foreseeable outcomes, thereby training responsibility over time.

Rationales Grounded in First Principles

Discipline in schools addresses the fundamental reality that human learning, particularly in group settings, requires sustained attention and minimal interference, which young children—whose prefrontal cortices are immature and prone to impulsivity—cannot reliably self-impose without external guidance. From causal mechanisms rooted in behavioral conditioning, consistent enforcement of rules establishes clear boundaries, enabling students to internalize expectations through repeated exposure to consequences, thereby fostering habits of focus and compliance essential for knowledge acquisition. Without such structure, disruptions proliferate, as evidenced by studies showing that unmanaged classrooms lose significant instructional time—up to 20-30% in high-disruption environments—directly correlating with reduced academic gains across subjects. A core principle lies in the developmental imperative to cultivate self-regulation, as children's natural tendencies toward immediate gratification undermine long-term skill-building unless counteracted by deliberate practice under supervision. Psychological research indicates that guided discipline promotes neural pathways for impulse control, leading to improved executive function by adolescence, whereas permissive environments exacerbate behavioral deficits, increasing risks of poor socialization and future maladjustment. This aligns with observable causal chains: enforced norms in schools mirror societal demands, training individuals for cooperative adulthood, where undisciplined cohorts exhibit higher rates of absenteeism, lower graduation (e.g., disciplined cohorts show 10-15% higher completion rates in longitudinal data), and diminished economic productivity. Empirically, disciplined settings yield measurable advantages in cognitive and social outcomes, as meta-analyses confirm that structured management reduces off-task behavior by 40-50%, enhancing engagement and retention without relying on punitive excess. These rationales stem not from ideological preference but from the invariant need for order in hierarchical learning systems, where unchecked liberty devolves into entropy, thwarting the primary telos of education: ordered transmission of capability.

Historical Evolution

Pre-Modern and Traditional Practices

In ancient Sparta, the agogē educational system, initiated around the 7th century BCE, mandated rigorous training for males starting at age seven, incorporating corporal punishment such as beatings with whips or sticks to instill obedience, endurance, and martial virtues amid communal living and scarcity-induced hardships. This approach extended to other Greek poleis like Athens, where formal schooling involved physical corrections by pedagogues to enforce decorum and learning, reflecting broader Hellenistic acceptance of flogging for youthful indiscipline. In Rome, from the Republic through the Empire, ludus teachers routinely applied corporal measures—including strikes with the ferula (a flat leather strap) or rods—to deter laziness or disruption, as evidenced in literary complaints like those from the comedian Menander, who noted the inescapability of such penalties in grammarian oversight. Medieval European education, spanning cathedral schools, monastic institutions, and early universities from roughly the 9th to 15th centuries, systematized corporal punishment as a pedagogical necessity, drawing from classical precedents like Quintilian's moderated use of the rod and Christian exegesis of Proverbs 13:24 ("He who spares the rod hates his son"). Flogging, whipping, and caning were regimented tools, applied judiciously to habitual offenders rather than impulsively, aiming to excise vices, foster humility, and align the body with rational discipline—pedagogues theorized that unchecked impulses in children necessitated physical intervention to cultivate virtuous adulthood. Texts such as Alexander Nequam's Ars Lectoria (c. 1200) prescribed graduated severities, from light taps for minor lapses to severe birchings for defiance, underscoring a causal view that pain imprinted moral lessons enduringly. These practices persisted into early modern traditional settings, such as Tudor grammar schools (16th-17th centuries), where statutes like those at St. Paul's School in London (1512) authorized masters to "beat liberally" for infractions, prioritizing hierarchical authority and rote mastery over individualized leniency. Empirical accounts from period diaries and conduct manuals reveal low tolerance for disorder, with shaming adjuncts like dunce caps or public birching reinforcing communal norms, though excesses prompted occasional critiques from humanists like Erasmus, who advocated restraint to avoid stifling intellect—yet without displacing the rod's primacy. This framework grounded discipline in first-principles assumptions of human nature's recalcitrance, positing physical correction as causally efficacious for habituating self-control absent modern psychological alternatives.

Industrial Era to Mid-20th Century Reforms

In the 19th century, as public schooling expanded amid industrialization, discipline in Western schools, particularly in the United States and United Kingdom, relied heavily on corporal punishment to enforce obedience, punctuality, and moral character deemed essential for an emerging industrial workforce. Educators employed methods such as caning, birching, and striking with a ferule or ruler on the hands or buttocks, often for infractions like tardiness or inattention. In the U.S., Horace Mann, secretary of the Massachusetts Board of Education from 1837 to 1848, promoted common schools emphasizing moral formation but viewed excessive corporal punishment skeptically, arguing in an 1840 lecture that it fostered fear rather than genuine self-control, though he did not advocate its outright abolition. Similarly, British schools under Victorian regulations permitted "moderate" corporal punishment with hand, cane, or strap solely for grave transgressions, excluding academic failures, to maintain order in crowded classrooms. Criticisms emerged in the mid-19th century, reflecting growing concerns over excessive severity. In 1846, Walt Whitman decried the routine use of corporal punishment in Brooklyn public schools as barbaric and counterproductive, urging alternatives like moral suasion. Despite such voices, the practice persisted into the early 20th century, with teachers in U.S. schools using switches, cowhides, or rulers, and supplementary measures like kneeling on sharp objects or wearing dunce caps to deter misbehavior. Reformatory and industrial schools established in Britain via acts from 1854 to 1857 incorporated corporal punishment as a core tool for juvenile offenders, underscoring its perceived necessity for behavioral correction. The progressive education movement, gaining traction from the late 19th century through figures like John Dewey, introduced reforms challenging rote authoritarianism. Dewey, in works spanning 1899 to 1938, advocated discipline through experiential learning, democratic classroom participation, and intrinsic motivation, positing that punishment often stifled natural growth and self-regulation rather than fostering it. This child-centered approach aimed to replace physical coercion with guided activities promoting cooperation and problem-solving, influencing teacher training and curricula in the U.S. by the 1920s. However, implementation was uneven; corporal punishment remained legally and culturally entrenched, with high school enrollment surges between 1890 and 1918 amplifying calls for stricter order amid larger, more diverse student bodies. By the mid-20th century, up to the 1950s, school discipline retained much of its punitive character, with physical measures still common in many U.S. and U.K. institutions to ensure compliance, though alternatives like after-school detention and loss of recess gained modest acceptance as adjuncts. Psychological insights from behaviorism, including B.F. Skinner's operant conditioning principles emerging in the 1930s, began informing some educators toward reward-based incentives over sole reliance on pain, yet empirical data on widespread reform remained limited, and strict regimens persisted to counteract perceived post-war laxity in youth behavior.

Late 20th Century Shifts Toward Permissiveness

In the United States, school discipline practices began shifting toward greater permissiveness in the 1970s, marked by a marked decline in the use of corporal punishment and the introduction of procedural safeguards that complicated swift enforcement of rules. By 1978, approximately 4% of public school students experienced corporal punishment annually, but this figure steadily decreased thereafter due to growing state-level prohibitions and evolving professional views on child development. Between 1974 and 1994, 25 states enacted bans on corporal punishment in public schools, reflecting broader societal skepticism toward physical interventions as effective or appropriate for maintaining order. This permissiveness was reinforced by key U.S. Supreme Court decisions that prioritized student rights over administrative efficiency. In Goss v. Lopez (1975), the Court ruled that students facing suspension must receive oral or written notice of charges and an opportunity for explanation, establishing due process requirements that slowed disciplinary responses to disruptions. Although Ingraham v. Wright (1977) upheld the constitutionality of corporal punishment under the Eighth Amendment, it did not stem the momentum for alternatives, as educators increasingly turned to counseling and behavioral interventions amid concerns over potential abuse. These legal changes, combined with advocacy from organizations like the National Education Association, shifted focus from immediate correction to understanding misbehavior as symptomatic of underlying issues rather than willful defiance. Intellectual influences from developmental psychology and progressive education philosophies further propelled this trend, portraying strict discipline as potentially harmful to children's emotional growth. Late-20th-century research in child psychology emphasized nurturing environments over punitive measures, influencing educators to adopt views that linked misbehavior to developmental stages or external factors rather than requiring firm behavioral conditioning. For instance, evolving perspectives from the child study movement, building on earlier work by figures like John Dewey, promoted child-centered classrooms where rules were negotiated rather than imposed, reducing reliance on exclusionary tactics. In Europe, a parallel "permissive revolution" emerged post-World War II, with countries like Sweden banning school corporal punishment as early as 1958 and others following suit by the 1980s, driven by similar humanitarian concerns and psychological critiques of authoritarian control. By the 1990s, these shifts manifested in policies favoring restorative practices over traditional sanctions, though empirical support for improved outcomes remained limited, with some studies highlighting increased disorder in lenient settings. Public disapproval of harsh methods, fueled by media portrayals and professional guidelines, accelerated the move, yet regional disparities persisted, particularly in the U.S. South where corporal punishment endured longer. This era's emphasis on leniency prioritized equity and psychological well-being but often at the expense of consistent authority, setting the stage for later debates over school safety.

Theoretical Foundations

Behavioral and Conditioning Models

Behavioral models of school discipline derive from experimental psychology, emphasizing observable behaviors shaped through environmental contingencies rather than internal mental states. These approaches, rooted in the work of psychologists like Ivan Pavlov and B.F. Skinner, posit that student conduct can be modified via systematic application of stimuli and consequences, treating misbehavior as learned responses amenable to unlearning or replacement. In educational settings, such models prioritize immediate, measurable outcomes over abstract moral development, aligning with causal mechanisms where repeated associations alter behavioral probabilities. Operant conditioning, central to these models, involves voluntary actions influenced by their outcomes: positive reinforcement strengthens behaviors by adding desirable stimuli (e.g., verbal praise or tokens exchangeable for privileges following task completion), while negative reinforcement removes aversives (e.g., ending a demand after compliance). Punishment, conversely, weakens undesired actions through added unpleasant stimuli (e.g., reprimands) or withdrawal of positives (e.g., revoking recess). Skinner advocated programmed instruction in schools, breaking lessons into small, reinforced steps to ensure high success rates and gradual skill acquisition, as demonstrated in his 1950s teaching machines that provided immediate feedback. Classroom token economies, where students earn points for on-task behavior redeemable for rewards, exemplify this, with empirical trials showing reduced disruptions and increased academic engagement in elementary settings. Peer-reviewed evaluations confirm operant techniques' efficacy for short-term behavioral control. A 2023 study found positive reinforcement strategies, such as teacher praise contingent on prosocial acts, boosted student participation and diminished off-task actions by 20-30% in controlled classroom interventions. Differential reinforcement—rewarding alternatives to problem behaviors while extinguishing the originals—has similarly lowered disruptive incidents in group settings, with effect sizes ranging from moderate to large in meta-analyses of school-based applications. However, sustained effects require consistent implementation; intermittent reinforcement schedules, as Skinner described, prevent satiation but risk resurgence of maladaptive patterns if contingencies lapse. Classical conditioning complements operant methods by forging involuntary associations, such as pairing a teacher's calm tone with compliance cues to evoke relaxation amid potential conflicts, though its role in discipline is subsidiary to consequence-based shaping. Overall, these models underscore discipline as a probabilistic process: behaviors persist or fade based on reinforcement density, with empirical data from behavior analysis indicating superior control over permissive approaches for populations exhibiting high impulsivity, albeit with caveats on generalizability beyond structured environments.

Developmental Psychology and Moral Formation

Developmental psychology posits that moral formation in children and adolescents progresses through stages involving the internalization of societal norms, empathy, and principled reasoning, with school discipline serving as a key environmental factor influencing this trajectory. Jean Piaget's distinction between heteronomous morality, driven by external authority and immediate consequences, and autonomous morality, based on mutual respect and reciprocity, underscores how consistent disciplinary practices can shift children from rule-following out of fear to understanding intentions and fairness. Similarly, Lawrence Kohlberg's theory outlines six stages across preconventional, conventional, and postconventional levels, where progression depends on cognitive challenges, including exposure to dilemmas and justified rule enforcement in educational settings. Empirical evidence from longitudinal studies supports that disciplinary environments providing clear boundaries alongside explanations foster higher-stage moral reasoning, as children learn to weigh consequences against broader ethical principles rather than solely avoiding punishment. In school contexts, authoritative disciplinary approaches—combining firm structure with responsiveness and rationale—have been linked to enhanced moral development outcomes, such as reduced moral disengagement and improved prosocial behaviors. A 2024 study of schoolchildren found that classroom-level authoritative teaching negatively predicted increases in collective moral disengagement over time, with student-teacher relationship quality mediating this effect; authoritative practices encourage perspective-taking and accountability, countering justifications for unethical conduct. This aligns with broader findings that balanced discipline promotes self-regulation and empathy, core to moral formation, whereas overly punitive or inconsistent methods correlate with stalled development at lower stages, characterized by egocentric or instrumental orientations. For instance, research on adolescents shows authoritative management reduces bullying perpetration, reflecting advanced moral judgment through empathy and norm adherence. Conversely, harsh physical discipline in childhood has been associated with diminished moral reasoning in later years, potentially via impaired attachment and heightened external locus of control. Moral formation is further advanced when discipline integrates opportunities for reflection and restitution, enabling causal links between actions and ethical outcomes. Studies indicate that practices like guided discussions following infractions enhance self-control and moral self-adjustment in students, with self-control mediating the path to ethical decision-making. In secondary education, aligning disciplinary policies with developmental readiness—such as involving students in rule formulation at higher cognitive stages—facilitates transitions to principled morality, though empirical gaps persist in quantifying long-term societal impacts. These mechanisms emphasize discipline's role not merely in behavioral compliance but in cultivating an internal moral compass through repeated, reasoned enforcement of consequences.

Sociological and Cultural Influences

Sociological analyses of school discipline emphasize the role of social class in shaping behavioral expectations and outcomes. Students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds often enter schools with family socialization patterns that diverge from institutional norms, such as greater emphasis on immediate compliance over delayed gratification, leading to higher rates of perceived misbehavior and disciplinary referrals. This divergence stems from causal mechanisms in family environments, where economic pressures foster survival-oriented behaviors less aligned with middle-class school cultures prioritizing self-regulation and academic deference. Empirical data indicate that perceived legitimacy of disciplinary authority—rooted in familial respect for hierarchy—mediates these effects, with students viewing rules as fairer when congruent with home values, thereby reducing defiance. Cultural influences further modulate discipline through norms around authority and child-rearing. In societies endorsing hierarchical respect, such as those influenced by Confucian traditions, stricter enforcement correlates with fewer behavioral problems, as physical or verbal corrections align with familial practices and reinforce collective order. Conversely, in individualistic Western contexts, cultural shifts toward child autonomy since the mid-20th century—driven by progressive ideologies challenging institutional power—have eroded tolerance for firm discipline, associating it with authoritarianism rather than socialization. Cross-cultural studies reveal that mismatches between teacher expectations and student cultural backgrounds exacerbate disruptions; for instance, students from collectivist immigrant families may interpret direct confrontation as disrespectful, prompting escalated responses, while host-culture educators misattribute it to defiance rather than normative expression. In diverse settings, these influences manifest in disparities where behavioral differences, not solely bias, drive outcomes, though academic narratives often underemphasize the former due to ideological priors favoring equity frames over causal behavioral data. Peer-reviewed analyses show that cultural historical awareness in classrooms—accounting for varied norms without relativism—predicts better management, as unaddressed overlays lead to misinterpretations of routine actions as infractions. Ultimately, effective discipline requires bridging these gaps via explicit norm alignment, rather than diluting standards, to foster adaptive self-control across groups.

Common Disciplinary Methods

Corporal Punishment Practices

Corporal punishment in schools consists of intentionally inflicting bodily pain on students by authorized school personnel as a means of enforcing discipline, most commonly through striking the buttocks, hands, or other body parts with an open hand, leather strap, wooden paddle, rattan cane, or similar implement. This practice is typically reserved for infractions such as disruption, defiance, or fighting, and is administered swiftly following the offense to associate the pain with the misbehavior. In regions where permitted, procedures often mandate that the punishment be delivered by a school administrator rather than a classroom teacher, in a controlled setting to minimize injury, such as over clothing and without excessive force. In the United States, where corporal punishment remains legal in public schools across 17 states as of 2023, the predominant method is paddling, involving multiple swats from a wooden paddle measuring approximately 2 feet long and 6 inches wide, applied to the student's buttocks while bent over a desk or standing. During the 2017-2018 school year, approximately 69,000 students in U.S. public schools received such punishment nearly 97,000 times, with highest usage in southern states like Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, and Texas, where rates can exceed 5% of enrolled students annually. Administrators often document the incident in school records, and some districts require parental notification or consent, though enforcement varies. Globally, practices differ by region; in parts of Africa and Asia where legal, caning with a flexible rattan rod is common, targeting the palms or posterior for offenses like tardiness or cheating, with strokes numbered based on severity—typically 1 to 6. As of 2018, school corporal punishment was lawful in approximately 65 countries, comprising about one-third of nations, though prevalence remains high in low-resource settings, with lifetime exposure exceeding 70% in regions like sub-Saharan Africa and Central America. Less frequent methods, such as birching with bundled twigs or strapping, persist in isolated areas but have declined with legal reforms. Prohibitions have expanded, with 130 states banning it in schools as of April 2023, up from 119 in 2015, driven by international advocacy.

Exclusionary Measures

Exclusionary measures in school discipline refer to disciplinary actions that remove students from their regular educational environment, including out-of-school suspensions (OSS), in-school suspensions (ISS), and expulsions. OSS typically involve removal from school premises for a specified period, often 1 to 10 days for short-term cases or longer for serious infractions, while ISS confines students to supervised areas within the school without instructional access. Expulsions entail permanent removal, sometimes with conditions for readmission or transfer. These practices are justified as necessary for immediate threat mitigation and deterrence, allowing educators to refocus on uninhibited learning for the majority. In the United States, exclusionary measures remain prevalent despite reform efforts. During the 2023-2024 school year, New York City public schools issued 27,724 suspensions, a 2.4% decline from the prior year but still reflecting widespread application post-pandemic recovery. North Carolina reported 264,510 half-day or longer ISS instances affecting 131,704 students, yielding a rate of 175.38 per 1,000 students. Nationally, the U.S. Department of Education's Civil Rights Data Collection indicates persistent use, with OSS rates varying by district but often exceeding 5% of students annually in high-need areas prior to recent bans in early grades. Expulsions, though rarer, numbered in the thousands yearly, primarily for violent or weapons-related offenses. Empirical studies reveal limited effectiveness of exclusionary measures for long-term behavioral improvement. A meta-analysis of 53 cases from 34 studies found a significant inverse correlation between suspensions and academic achievement (r = -0.09), with no evidence of positive effects on future conduct or school climate. Suspended students face heightened risks of dropout (odds ratio up to 1.5 times higher) and criminal involvement, as exclusion often lacks structured intervention, exacerbating disengagement rather than addressing root causes like skill deficits or home factors. Short-term deterrence occurs—disruptions decrease during removal—but recidivism rates remain high, with one analysis showing suspended students 2-3 times more likely to reoffend within the year. Statewide bans on OSS for minor offenses in early grades, such as California's 2014-2015 policy extension, correlated with rising disorder in untreated upper elementary settings, suggesting displacement of problems without substitution by proven alternatives. Racial disparities in application persist, with Black students receiving OSS at rates 2-3 times higher than White peers for similar infraction categories, even after partial controls for behavior severity. However, aggregate misbehavior rates, including self-reported incidents and objective metrics like office referrals, align with higher discipline contacts for minority students, challenging narratives of systemic bias as the sole driver; differences in infraction frequency for objective offenses (e.g., fighting, disruption) explain 60-80% of gaps in some datasets. Studies emphasizing "soft" subjectivities (e.g., defiance) show residual disparities, potentially reflecting cultural mismatches in behavioral norms or implicit perceptions, but causal evidence for bias-induced over-punishment remains correlational, not experimental. Exclusionary measures thus mirror broader societal patterns in antisocial conduct, where unaddressed escalation leads to entrenched cycles.

Restorative and Positive Behavioral Interventions

Restorative practices in schools seek to address misbehavior by facilitating dialogue among affected parties, such as offenders, victims, and community members, to repair harm and restore relationships rather than imposing exclusionary punishments. These methods, adapted from indigenous and criminal justice traditions, include restorative circles for community-building and conferences for conflict resolution, with implementation surging in the U.S. after the 2014 Every Student Succeeds Act encouraged alternatives to suspension. A 2021 evaluation in Pittsburgh public schools found that restorative practices were associated with reductions in suspensions, though specific percentages varied by school; effects were linked to improved relationships rather than solely socio-emotional skills. However, causal mechanisms remain debated, as reductions may stem from deferred discipline rather than behavioral change, with some implementations correlating to increased classroom disruptions due to prolonged discussions. Critics argue that restorative approaches often fail to deter repeat offenses or provide sufficient structure, as evidenced by mixed outcomes in urban districts where violence rose after adoption; for instance, a 2019 evaluation in New York City schools reported no overall decline in serious incidents despite fewer suspensions, suggesting permissive elements undermine deterrence. Empirical reviews highlight implementation challenges, including teacher burnout from time-intensive sessions—averaging 20-30 minutes per incident—and inadequate training, leading to inconsistent application and potential revictimization of harmed parties. While eight studies across diverse settings noted decreased aggression and bullying perceptions post-adoption, long-term data is sparse, with no robust evidence linking practices to academic gains or reduced recidivism beyond initial referral drops. Academic sources promoting efficacy often originate from equity-focused institutions, potentially overlooking null or adverse effects in high-disruption environments. Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS), a multi-tiered framework launched in the 1990s under U.S. Department of Education auspices, emphasizes defining, teaching, and reinforcing prosocial behaviors through data-driven systems rather than reactive punishment. Tier 1 involves school-wide expectations and rewards, such as token economies for compliance, while Tiers 2 and 3 target at-risk students with individualized plans; by 2023, over 27,000 U.S. schools implemented it. A 2012 randomized study of 18 elementary schools reported PBIS reduced office discipline referrals by 20-30% and aggressive behaviors via improved emotion regulation, effects sustained over three years. Recent meta-analyses, including one of 28 studies, confirm modest reductions in problem behaviors (effect size d ≈ 0.20) under PBIS, especially in elementary settings. Notwithstanding these findings, PBIS outcomes vary by fidelity; a 2023 review of secondary schools found no significant academic improvements and inconsistent referral drops when implementation lapsed below 80% adherence, as measured by self-assessments. Critics note overreliance on extrinsic rewards may erode intrinsic motivation, with some districts experiencing referral inflation from lowered thresholds for "positive" interventions, potentially masking persistent disruptions. For students with disabilities, a 2018 meta-analysis indicated modest efficacy of PBIS in reducing problem behaviors but limited impact on exclusions without combined punitive elements. Overall, while PBIS demonstrates short-term behavioral compliance gains—supported by NIH-funded trials—causal evidence for lasting moral development or school safety is weaker, with benefits most pronounced in structured, low-poverty settings rather than chaotic ones where punitive backups are absent.

Empirical Evidence of Effectiveness

Studies on Immediate Behavioral Control

Studies examining immediate behavioral control in school settings primarily draw from operant conditioning frameworks, where consistent, contingent consequences—either reinforcers or punishers—rapidly alter observable student actions such as disruptions, non-compliance, or aggression. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs, often in classroom or controlled environments, demonstrate that techniques like time-out and positive reinforcement yield measurable short-term reductions in target behaviors, typically within sessions or days, by interrupting reinforcement contingencies. These effects are attributed to the immediacy of delivery, which strengthens association between behavior and outcome, outperforming delayed or inconsistent applications. Time-out procedures, involving brief removal from positive reinforcement sources, have shown robust immediate efficacy in suppressing attention-maintained disruptive behaviors among elementary and preschool students. A review of intervention studies found time-out decreased target behavior frequency by 70-90% in initial applications, with effects observable within minutes of implementation when exclusionary (e.g., isolation from peers) rather than contingent observation variants were used. Similarly, a 2019 replication study with preschool children confirmed that immediate time-out reduced problem behaviors like tantrums during sessions, contrasting with delayed versions that showed rebound effects, underscoring the causal role of temporal proximity in suppression. In therapeutic day schools, isolation time-outs correlated with 50-80% drops in severe emotional outbursts post-implementation, though generalization to non-time-out settings required paired positive strategies. Positive reinforcement strategies, such as verbal praise or token systems delivered immediately following compliant behavior, similarly produce rapid increases in on-task actions and decreases in disruptions. Classroom experiments reported 40-60% gains in student engagement within single lessons when teachers provided contingent feedback, with effects strongest for behaviors reinforced by social attention. A 2023 study on reinforcement in higher education contexts, adaptable to K-12, found immediate rewards elevated participation rates by 25-35% over baseline, attributing this to heightened motivation via dopamine-linked pathways, though sustained effects demanded variable scheduling to prevent satiation. Corporal punishment's immediate effects on behavior remain understudied in controlled settings, with available data suggesting transient compliance driven by fear rather than learning. Surveys in secondary schools indicated 68% of paddled students exhibited short-term avoidance of rule-breaking due to heightened anxiety, but without corresponding skill-building, leading to inconsistent suppression across contexts. Comparative analyses in U.S. districts found no significant immediate behavioral disparities between corporal and non-corporal schools, implying equivalence in short-term control but highlighting potential for escalation in aggressive responses. Peer-reviewed caution prevails, as immediate deterrence often masks underlying resentment, per behavioral models favoring non-aversive alternatives for replicable control. Moderating factors include implementation fidelity and student characteristics; for instance, time-out efficacy drops below 50% if not paired with clear antecedents, while positive methods show diminished returns in high-disruption environments without baseline rule teaching. Overall, evidence converges on immediate control as achievable through prompt, consistent contingencies, with positive approaches demonstrating fewer unintended side effects in empirical trials.

Long-Term Outcomes for Students and Schools

Longitudinal studies indicate that students attending schools with consistent enforcement of clear behavioral expectations, such as "No Excuses" charter schools, exhibit improved long-term academic outcomes, including higher standardized test scores (0.25 standard deviations in math and 0.17 in literacy) and increased college enrollment rates compared to peers in traditional public schools. These effects persist into adulthood, particularly benefiting disadvantaged students, English learners, and those with special needs, suggesting that structured discipline fosters habits conducive to sustained achievement rather than merely short-term compliance. However, exclusionary practices like out-of-school suspensions for minor infractions show associations with diminished academic trajectories, including reduced high school graduation rates (e.g., a 2.5% drop linked to increased police presence and suspensions) and lower grade progression, though causal attribution remains debated due to preexisting behavioral differences among suspended students. International data from PISA assessments reinforce that stronger disciplinary climates—measured by lower truancy, tardiness, and disruption—correlate positively with reading, math, and science performance across countries, with objective discipline metrics explaining up to 0.24 standard deviations in scores. On behavioral and criminal outcomes, evidence from quasi-experimental designs shows that schools increasing suspensions specifically for violent incidents reduce subsequent school crime rates without elevating overall student offending, implying targeted enforcement deters escalation rather than amplifying recidivism. Conversely, broad reductions in discipline post-policy reforms (e.g., after 2014 U.S. federal guidelines limiting suspensions) have coincided with rising classroom disorder and violence reports, as documented in national surveys, potentially undermining long-term behavioral self-regulation. While some analyses link suspension history to higher adult arrest risks, these often fail to isolate selection effects, where initial misconduct predicts outcomes independently of disciplinary response. For mental health, suspended students report elevated depressive symptoms into early adulthood (e.g., significantly higher rates than non-suspended peers), yet this pattern may reflect underlying issues prompting discipline rather than its imposition, as structured environments in high-discipline schools correlate with fewer reported psychosocial deficits over time. At the school level, rigorous discipline policies enhance institutional safety and academic performance, with meta-analyses of charter models showing sustained gains in graduation and postsecondary access, alongside reduced chronic absenteeism and disruption that otherwise erode collective outcomes. Such approaches, when applied uniformly, appear to yield net positive effects by prioritizing causal mechanisms like orderly learning conditions over individualized exclusion.

Moderating Factors and Causal Mechanisms

The effectiveness of school disciplinary practices operates through several causal pathways, primarily rooted in operant conditioning principles where immediate consequences suppress undesired behaviors via negative reinforcement or punishment, though long-term internalization requires consistent pairing with positive alternatives to foster self-regulation. Punitive measures like suspensions temporarily deter misconduct by removing students from the reinforcing environment of peers or attention-seeking, but this mechanism often fails to address root causes, leading to escalated externalizing behaviors upon return due to missed instructional time and weakened school attachment. Corporal punishment, in particular, exerts a direct causal influence on increased aggression through reflexive pain-avoidance responses and social learning of coercive control, with longitudinal data indicating it models hierarchical dominance rather than moral reasoning, thereby perpetuating cycles of defiance rather than compliance. Restorative interventions, by contrast, promote behavioral change via mediated accountability and relationship repair, activating prosocial norms and empathy, though their causal impact remains mediated by implementation fidelity rather than inherent superiority. Moderating factors significantly condition these pathways, with student perceptions of procedural justice—such as fairness in application—amplifying deterrence effects under traditional frameworks, as perceived legitimacy enhances voluntary compliance beyond mere fear. Teacher-student relational quality moderates outcomes across practices, buffering negative effects of exclusionary tactics by sustaining trust and support structures that facilitate behavioral redirection, particularly in high-structure environments. Demographic variables, including age and socioeconomic background, interact with discipline type; younger students exhibit stronger immediate suppression from authoritative measures due to developmental reliance on external controls, while family-level factors like parental endorsement of school rules reinforce consistency, mitigating rebound effects. School-level moderators, such as policy uniformity and resource allocation for alternatives, explain variance in long-term efficacy, with inconsistent enforcement undermining causal chains by fostering cynicism and selective adherence among students. Meta-analytic evidence further reveals that suspension length inversely moderates academic trajectories, with prolonged exclusions exacerbating achievement gaps through cumulative instructional loss, independent of baseline behavior severity. These interactions underscore that no universal mechanism prevails, as contextual alignments determine whether discipline yields adaptive habit formation or entrenched resistance.

Key Controversies

Efficacy and Ethics of Physical Discipline

Physical discipline in schools, encompassing practices such as paddling, strapping, or caning, aims to enforce compliance through immediate physical discomfort. Laboratory experiments on immediate compliance indicate that such methods can effectively suppress defiant behavior in the short term, comparable to or superior to time-out alternatives when used conditionally after verbal correction. A 2000 review of 38 studies found that nonabusive, customary physical punishment by parents—analogous to school applications—yielded beneficial outcomes like reduced noncompliance and fighting in six clinical samples and three sequential-analysis studies, with no evidence of harm when limited to mild swats on extremities for ages 2-6 or 8-13. Long-term efficacy remains contested, with correlational meta-analyses often linking school corporal punishment to increased aggression, antisocial behavior, and poorer cognitive outcomes, but these associations are typically small (explaining less than 1% of variance after controlling for confounders like family socioeconomic status and baseline behavior). A 2024 analysis of longitudinal data reconciled prior contradictory reviews, concluding that customary physical discipline does not predict detrimental child outcomes beyond initial controls, challenging claims of widespread harm. Critics of anti-corporal punishment research highlight methodological flaws, including reliance on cross-sectional designs, failure to distinguish mild from harsh applications, and "intervention selection bias" where severe cases inflate negative associations; peer-reviewed defenses emphasize that alternatives like reasoning alone yield similar or worse defiance rates in defiant youth. In school contexts, evidence is sparser, but states retaining corporal punishment (e.g., Texas, Mississippi as of 2025) show no widespread spikes in disorder following ban reversals in other areas, based on available reports, suggesting deterrence persists without long-term escalation. Ethically, physical discipline raises debates over child autonomy versus societal order. Proponents, drawing from behavioral principles, argue it mirrors natural consequences (e.g., pain from unchecked aggression), fostering self-control and respect for authority without eroding moral development when administered judiciously by trained adults—evidenced by lower recidivism in conditional use versus permissive approaches. Opponents invoke rights-based frameworks, asserting it violates dignity and risks escalation to abuse, as reflected in national laws banning it in all settings in over 65 countries as of 2023, in line with UN Convention on the Rights of the Child principles ratified by nearly all nations; however, some empirical reviews in regulated settings find limited evidence of causal links to abuse, though this remains debated; bans in some jurisdictions correlate with unchanged or rising youth violence according to certain studies. Academic consensus against it, reflected in bodies like the APA and WHO, often overlooks counter-evidence from rigorous designs, potentially influenced by ideological priors favoring non-punitive models despite their failures in high-disruption environments. Ultimately, ethical justification hinges on context: mild, rule-bound applications may align with causal realism—teaching proportionality—over unsubstantiated fears of universal harm, provided alternatives prove inferior for persistent defiance.

Disparities in Application: Behavior vs. Bias Narratives

Racial disparities in school discipline, particularly higher rates of suspensions and expulsions for Black students compared to White students, have been documented extensively in U.S. public schools. Data from the U.S. Department of Education's Civil Rights Data Collection indicate that Black students are suspended at rates approximately 3.8 times higher than White students overall, with similar patterns persisting across elementary, middle, and high school levels as of the 2017-2018 school year. These gaps persist even after controlling for socioeconomic status, though they are more pronounced in schools with lower poverty concentrations. One prevailing narrative attributes these disparities primarily to educator bias, including implicit racial prejudices that lead to harsher interpretations of identical behaviors exhibited by minority students. Proponents of this view, often drawing from social psychology research, argue that teachers perceive disruptions by Black students as more severe or intentional, resulting in disproportionate referrals and penalties for subjective offenses like "defiance" rather than objective ones like fighting. For instance, experimental studies have shown teachers recommending stricter discipline for vignettes describing misbehavior by Black students versus White students with matching details. This perspective has influenced policy, such as the Obama administration's 2014 guidance urging schools to reduce disparities through bias training and limits on exclusionary practices, framing inequities as systemic discrimination independent of student conduct. Empirical analyses using longitudinal data, however, provide stronger evidence that differences in student behavior—rather than bias alone—account for the majority of observed gaps. In a study utilizing the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-Kindergarten (ECLS-K) cohort, researchers found that racial differences in teacher- and parent-reported problem behaviors in kindergarten fully explained the Black-White gap in suspensions by third grade; once prior conduct issues like aggression and inattention were controlled, no independent racial effect remained. Similarly, analysis of the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study decomposed the suspension gap among boys, attributing 23-48% to behavioral differences measured via multiple informants, with early (age 5) problem behaviors alone explaining about 9-10% to avoid endogeneity from contemporaneous reports potentially influenced by discipline itself. These findings align with broader patterns in national surveys, where Black students consistently report and are observed engaging in higher rates of disruptive acts, such as fighting or non-compliance, correlating with factors like family instability and exposure to community violence rather than inherent racial traits. Critiques of the bias-dominant narrative highlight methodological limitations in perception-based studies, such as reliance on hypothetical scenarios or self-reported attitudes that may not translate to real-world decisions, and note a tendency in academic literature—often produced by institutions with documented ideological skews—to prioritize discrimination explanations over behavioral causation. While some residual disparities may stem from differential treatment for ambiguous infractions, aggregate data from objective behavioral metrics indicate that policy responses emphasizing anti-bias reforms, like restorative justice mandates, have sometimes increased overall disorder by under-disciplining misconduct, exacerbating safety issues without closing gaps. Causal realism suggests addressing root drivers of behavioral differences, such as early intervention in family and community environments, would more effectively mitigate disparities than assuming equivalence in conduct across groups.

Failures of Reformist Approaches

Reformist approaches to school discipline, such as restorative justice practices and positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS), have frequently failed to achieve their goals of reducing misbehavior while maintaining safe learning environments, often resulting in elevated levels of disruption and violence. In New York City, implementation of restorative justice under Mayor Bill de Blasio's administration from 2014 onward, which emphasized alternatives to suspensions for non-violent offenses, yielded no statistically significant improvements in school climate or reductions in suspensions, while undermining teacher authority and classroom order. Similarly, PBIS frameworks, intended to promote positive behaviors through rewards and systemic supports, have been critiqued for inadequately addressing persistent negative behaviors, leading to resource strain without commensurate reductions in office referrals or aggression in many implementations. Empirical analyses indicate these methods often substitute dialogue for accountability, failing to instill self-control or deter repeat offenses, as students perceive minimal consequences for disruptions. District-level data further substantiates these shortcomings, with leniency correlating to spikes in violent incidents. In Chicago Public Schools, following discipline reforms that curtailed arrests and emphasized restorative measures, violent crime surged 26% in 2023 amid record-low arrests, exacerbating peer disrespect and teacher-reported disruptions. Broward County's PROMISE program, launched in 2013 to divert non-violent juvenile offenders from arrests into school-based interventions, exemplified systemic failure when it overlooked repeated threats and expulsions of shooter Nikolas Cruz, contributing to the 2018 Parkland massacre that killed 17; the program was later scrutinized for prioritizing reduced arrest statistics over threat assessment. Such outcomes align with broader patterns where reduced exclusionary discipline has not curbed underlying behavioral issues, instead fostering environments where unchecked aggression persists, as evidenced by teacher surveys reporting heightened threats and unsafe conditions in reformed districts. These failures have prompted policy reversals, underscoring the causal link between diminished deterrence and rising disorder. Post-2020, states like Arizona and others enacted legislation to restore suspensions and expulsions for violent acts, citing post-pandemic surges in incidents—such as a 7.7% national drop in reported violence only after partial rollbacks, but with persistent concerns over underreporting under prior leniency. Lawmakers in multiple jurisdictions argued that 2010s-era reforms, influenced by federal guidance on racial disparities, deterred necessary interventions against unruly students, eroding safety without evidence of equitable behavioral gains. While some academic studies claim neutral or positive effects from reforms, district-specific empirical data from independent analyses reveal implementation gaps and unintended escalations in victimization, highlighting how reformist models often prioritize procedural equity over causal enforcement of norms.

Global Bans and Cultural Variations

As of 2024, corporal punishment in schools is prohibited by law in more than 130 countries worldwide, encompassing nearly all of Europe, most of Latin America, and an increasing number of states in Asia and the Pacific. These prohibitions typically stem from international commitments, such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, with Sweden pioneering a school-specific ban in 1958, later extended to all settings in 1979. Despite this progress, enforcement varies, and in regions with recent adoptions—like Tajikistan's full ban in August 2024 or Thailand's in March 2025—implementation challenges persist due to entrenched norms and limited resources for alternative disciplinary training. In contrast, corporal punishment remains lawful in educational settings in roughly 62 countries as of April 2025, predominantly in sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and the Middle East, where it is often justified under cultural or religious frameworks emphasizing hierarchical authority. For instance, countries like Nigeria, Pakistan, and Indonesia permit physical discipline such as caning or paddling, with reported usage rates exceeding 50% in some surveys of teachers. Pledges to reform have emerged, as in November 2024 when Panama, Kyrgyzstan, Uganda, Burundi, Sri Lanka, and the Czech Republic committed to total prohibitions, though legal enactment lags behind announcements. Data from organizations tracking these trends indicate that while bans correlate with reduced formal reports of physical discipline, underground practices continue in banned jurisdictions, particularly in under-resourced rural schools. Cultural variations in school discipline extend beyond physical methods to encompass broader approaches shaped by societal values, economic conditions, and collectivism-individualism divides. A 2010 cross-national analysis of 41 countries revealed stricter classroom discipline—measured by teacher reports of rule enforcement and student compliance—in poorer economies, more gender-traditional societies, and those with greater economic equality, suggesting causal links between resource scarcity and reliance on immediate, authoritative control to maintain order. In East Asian contexts, such as Singapore and South Korea, Confucian-influenced practices prioritize rote obedience and collective harmony, often employing verbal shaming or detention over physical means where banned, yielding higher reported student conformity rates compared to Western peers. Conversely, individualistic cultures in North America and Western Europe favor dialogic and restorative techniques, though empirical reviews question their universality, noting higher disruption in permissive settings without structured alternatives. These differences persist despite globalization, as local norms resist one-size-fits-all reforms promoted by international bodies.

United States Federal and State Policies

Federal policies on school discipline have evolved through legislation addressing safety, disabilities, and equity concerns. The Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994 requires states receiving federal education funds to enact zero-tolerance policies for firearms on school grounds, mandating expulsion for at least one year for students found with guns, unless modified by the principal for specific cases. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), as amended, permits schools to remove students with disabilities for up to 10 cumulative days in a school year without additional procedures, akin to non-disabled students, but requires a manifestation determination review for longer removals to assess if behavior was linked to the disability. In 2014, the Obama administration's Department of Education and Department of Justice issued a Dear Colleague Letter warning schools that racial disparities in discipline rates could signal Title VI violations under disparate impact theory, urging reduced suspensions and alternative interventions to address perceived inequities. This guidance, while voluntary, pressured districts through threat of investigations, correlating with subsequent drops in suspensions and reports of increased classroom disruptions, as discipline decisions shifted toward avoiding statistical imbalances rather than solely behavioral evidence. The Trump administration rescinded this guidance in December 2018, citing undue federal overreach that compromised school safety and local authority, emphasizing discipline based on conduct over racial outcomes. State policies vary significantly, particularly on corporal punishment, with 17 states permitting its use in public schools as of 2025, primarily in the South, while 31 states and the District of Columbia ban it outright. In states allowing corporal punishment, such as Texas and Mississippi, it remains practiced in numerous districts, often for severe misbehavior, though usage has declined; for instance, Florida's 2025 law (HB 1255) requires explicit parental consent annually or per incident. Bans in states like Illinois, which banned corporal punishment in public schools effective July 1, 2022, via Public Act 102-0616, reflect broader trends toward non-physical alternatives, though enforcement gaps persist in some areas like Ohio. States generally retain autonomy over non-federal discipline frameworks, with many adopting restorative practices post-2014 but facing pushback amid evidence of lax enforcement correlating with safety declines.

Post-2020 Policy Reversals and Trends

In response to heightened student behavioral disruptions following the COVID-19 pandemic, including increased fights, absenteeism, and assaults on staff, several U.S. states enacted legislation to strengthen disciplinary measures starting in 2023. For instance, Kentucky passed a law in 2023 mandating expulsion for students bringing firearms to school and allowing local districts greater flexibility in suspending disruptive students, reversing prior constraints influenced by equity-focused reforms. Similar measures emerged in Florida and Tennessee, where lawmakers proposed expanding suspension authority for willful defiance and chronic disruption amid reports of post-pandemic spikes in violence. At the federal level, the Trump administration's Executive Order on April 23, 2025, titled "Reinstating Common Sense School Discipline Policies," explicitly rescinded Obama-era guidance from 2014 and 2018—later reaffirmed under Biden—that had pressured schools to reduce suspensions and expulsions to mitigate racial disparities under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, often prioritizing statistical equity over behavioral accountability. The order argued that such prior directives fostered disorder by discouraging effective punishment, citing empirical rises in school violence post-2020 as evidence that lenient approaches failed to maintain order. This reversal aligned with data showing national suspension rates dipped during remote learning but rebounded unevenly, with Black and low-income students facing higher relative rates amid broader chaos, challenging narratives that disparities alone warranted blanket reductions. State-level trends reflected this federal pivot, with proposals in places like California to amend restrictions on "willful defiance" suspensions for older students, previously curtailed under SB 419 (2014) to address perceived over-discipline. By mid-2025, at least five states had introduced bills to restore local control over discipline, emphasizing safety over restorative practices that empirical reviews indicated prolonged disruptions without reducing recidivism. These shifts were driven by causal links between reduced pre-2020 enforcement—often tied to disparate impact avoidance—and post-pandemic escalations, where schools reported 20-50% increases in serious incidents like assaults, underscoring the limits of non-punitive models in enforcing behavioral norms.

References

Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.