Publications>
Research Bulletin

Phi Delta Kappa Center for Evaluation, Development, and Research
September 1998, No. 21

Addressing the Issues Surrounding School Suspensions and Expulsions

Public attention has focused recently on school districts that suspend or expel students for such "offenses" as kissing a first-grade classmate on the cheek (sexual harassment), sharing grandfather's gold watch -- with a one-inch knife on the chain -- in second-grade "show and tell" (zero tolerance for weapons), and carrying or giving Midol to a friend (zero tolerance for drugs). School districts that eagerly adopt school codes with little room for interpretation too often snare innocent students and frequently find they are subject to public ridicule. Why is this happening?

Schools are caught in a bind trying to comply with state regulations mandated by the federal Drug-Free Schools Act and the Gun-Free Schools Zone Act, which were adopted as part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). This legislation, which is continually updated, requires full compliance for states to qualify for federal funds under the programs supported by ESEA. As with all legislation, there is room for interpretation; but because of the possibility of legal action, districts have adopted "zero-tolerance" policies relating to any weapon -- not just guns -- and any drug -- legal or illegal.

This conflicted state of affairs over student codes of conduct will not be alleviated easily, in spite of efforts by the federal government and others to bring some common sense into the arena. For example, in March 1997 it was reported that the U.S. Department of Education was issuing guidelines to schools that receive federal dollars (most do) that called for "judgment and common sense" (e.g., considering the alleged offender's age) on the part of school officials when dealing with sexual harassment. One wonders if similar guidelines will be forthcoming in relation to guns and drugs.

SOME ISSUES

Due in part to the current state of affairs, the number of suspensions and expulsions has increased dramatically in recent years. Too many students experience a disciplinary process that is neither structured with the students' best interest in mind nor designed to meet their academic and nonacademic needs. "When a child is removed from the classroom as a form of discipline," Claudette McDonald Brown and Kathleen Birrane note, "isolation from classmates and exclusion from school and related activities can be devastating. Depending on the reason for and the length of the removal, some kids will never return."(1) Indeed, truancy and absenteeism commonly follow a student's removal from public school, and there is a direct correlation between suspensions and expulsions and delinquency rates.

In an attempt to identify problems inherent in student codes of conduct, Brown and Birrane have examined the state of Maryland's statutory law. One problem is that the kinds of behaviors that may result in expulsion or suspension are not specifically addressed. Frequently they found that codes of conduct enacted by local school boards do not articulate rules in concrete, behavioral terms, but rather catch-all phrases or criminal terminology. Such wording grants unlimited discretion to school administrators. They note, "The circularity of the definition grants enormous discretion to expel for a broad range of behaviors on the basis of subjective criteria that may or may not have any bearing on the actual severity of the student's conduct."(2)

It is important to keep in mind that the Supreme Court has recognized that when students are removed from public school, this is a deprivation that impels due process protections (Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 95 S. Ct. 729, 42 L. Ed. 2d 725, 1975). Due process requires both a mechanism that must be employed before a student is removed from school and the articulation of those behaviors that can activate the removal. Thus, in developing codes of conduct, educators need to avoid the use of vague language to describe the types of behavior that will be subject to expulsion or suspension or the procedures that will be followed.

Public schools also need to be aware of important changes that were made in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) during its reauthorization by Congress in June 1997. These changes have implications for disciplinary exclusion for students with disabilities. Continuous parental involvement is necessary in determining a free appropriate public education, whether disabled students are suspended or expelled for a short time (less than 10 days) or for a long time (more than 10 days). Eileen Ordover, at the Center on Law and Education, Harvard University, addresses what schools must do to comply with these new provisions.(3)

PROMISING PROGRAMS & PRACTICE

Mentor programs that pair teachers and community volunteers with a student, peer mediation, and alternative learning centers are among the effective prevention strategies and alternatives to suspension and expulsion being implemented in some of Maryland's school districts. In-school suspension programs are another alternative, but schools need to make sure that the programs reflect philosophies that coincide with the overall education philosophy of the school.(4) Effective programs also should have clearly stated rules that are firm, fair, and consistently enforced. Procedures should define the atmosphere of the program and describe how acceptable behavior will be determined.

Another method some public schools are using to reduce disruptive behavior and ensure school safety is to develop dress codes. The landmark case of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District sets a legal precedent for developing such codes while protecting students' constitutional rights to freedom of expression. A U.S. Department of Education manual on school uniforms has been developed to assist schools in responding to growing public interest in uniforms as a way of reducing violence and promoting discipline.(5) The manual presents a set of helpful guidelines for those communities desiring to adopt school-uniform policies as part of an overall program to improve school safety and discipline and to reduce the growing level of violence in their schools.

CONCLUSIONS

In spite of efforts by many school districts to provide alternative programs and support for students in need, there is still much to be done to reduce significantly the number of school expulsions and suspensions. This may prove difficult because of the enormous challenges confronting public schools and the political pressures on states to look at school improvement as a reform issue encompassing broadly based initiatives relating to teacher training, testing, school climate, codes of conduct, curricular changes, and other factors that overwhelm school administrators, teachers, and students. Specific programs, such as those for reducing school expulsions and suspensions among distinct student populations, are often given short shrift.

Issues related to implementation, such as resources and training, and potential outcomes for any reform effort need to be addressed up front, with clear guidelines for regular evaluations and dedicated funding for an established period of time, with commitments for continued financial support where merited. Successful alternative programs to educate young people in need are not cheap, nor are efforts to provide the necessary support services to prevent expulsions, suspensions, and dropouts. There is no such thing as the "perfect" solution to some of the endemic problems facing public schools and their communities. Reforms and people are never perfect. Therefore, we must determine which imperfections are tolerable in any effort to improve our schools. We should also take into account the reported results of the three-year study by the congressionally established National Education Commission on Time and Learning (NECTL), which called time "the missing element in school improvement debates."(6) The NECTL warned that if discussions about school improvement did not include the use of time, desired outcomes for reforms would be difficult to achieve. Time within current school calendars is very limited, and any serious effort to improve schools must take this into account and provide the additional reimbursed time necessary so that the work is regarded seriously and not trivialized.

Model programs can be adapted to local student needs, to available financial resources and staff capabilities, and to community perceptions about needed improvements. School improvement requires a sustained, long-term effort by dedicated professionals who are willing to live with some failures along with their successes. It is vital that schools have the full involvement and support of their communities for any meaningful, positive, long-term impact to be felt and sustained. The appropriate community agencies and the families or guardians of students encountering difficulties must be full partners in any effort to increase student attendance. This is especially crucial in relation to eliminating the number of school dropouts and reducing truancy rates. Schools cannot resolve such issues alone.

ENDNOTES

1. Claudette McDonald Brown and Kathleen A. Birrane, "What's Happening to Our Children?" Maryland Bar Journal 27, no. 3 (1994): 37.

2. Ibid., 38.

3. Eileen L. Ordover, Disciplinary Exclusion of Students with Disabilities Under Federal Law: An Overview (Boston, Mass.: Center for Law and Education, 1997).

4. John Sheets, "Designing an Effective In-School Suspension Program to Change Student Behavior," NASSP Bulletin 80, no. 579 (1996): 88.

5. Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program, Manual on School Uniforms (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 1996).

6. National Education Commission on Time and Learning, "Prisoners of Time," Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 1994, as cited in Accelerated Schools, Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University, 1997.