Many school children in America are on summer break right now, but here’s a pop quiz about discipline policies in our nation’s schools that’s just for grownups:
Would you suspend a student from school for four months for sharpening his pencil without permission and giving the teacher a “threatening” look when asked to sit down?
Would you expel a student from school for the rest of a school year for poking another student with a ballpoint pen during an exam?
Would you expel a student from school permanently because her possession of an antibiotic violated your school’s zero-tolerance drug policy?
Would you call the police, handcuff, and then expel a student who started a snowball fight on school grounds?
If you answered ‘no’ to any of these questions because they sounded too unfair to be the result of an actual policy, give yourself a failing grade. All four are real examples of zero tolerance school discipline policies in Massachusetts—and there are thousands of stories like these throughout that state and across the country. Suspended and expelled students are at greater risk of dropping out of school and dropping into the prison pipeline, and using automatic suspensions and expulsions for minor infractions often has a major negative effect on a child’s entire future.
New research analyzing the data from the 2009 – 2010 school year in Massachusetts found nearly 60,000 school expulsions and suspensions. Just over half of them were for “unassigned offenses” – nonviolent, noncriminal offenses, which can include behavioral issues such as swearing, talking back to a teacher, and truancy. (I’ve never understood why you suspend or expel children for not coming to school rather than finding out why!) Of the approximately 30,000 “unassigned offenses,” two-thirds received out of school suspension, resulting in 57,000 lost days of school. What’s more, because Massachusetts schools aren’t currently required to report “unassigned offenses” resulting in exclusions of 10 days or less for regular education students, the estimated actual number of disciplinary exclusions is likely at least two to three times the 60,000 reported.
Jen Vorse Wilka, a student at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, found these startling statistics when she studied zero tolerance discipline policies in Massachusetts as part of her master’s degree program. Her final report, “Dismantling the Cradle to Prison Pipeline: Analyzing Zero Tolerance School Discipline Policies and Identifying Strategic Opportunities for Intervention,” received an award from the school’s faculty and sheds new light on the need to address these harmful policies.
Added together, the tens of thousands of suspensions—many for minor infractions—have an enormous negative impact. As Wilka explains, “Children start down the path to prison in both jarring and subtle ways. It’s not just the teenager who ends up behind bars; it’s also the child who is suspended for disruptive behavior, misses a few days of school, and begins to feel disconnected. The more disconnected he becomes, the more he acts out in class. This cycle repeats. National research suggests that this child is three times more likely to drop out of school by 10th grade than a student who has never been suspended; and dropping out triples the likelihood this child will end up incarcerated later in life. It is this indirect pipeline that can be addressed by implementing more nuanced approaches to school discipline, helping students stay in school—and out of prison.”
This report bolsters the work Massachusetts community leaders and advocates are already doing to take action against harsh one-size-fits-all policies and call for more balanced approaches. Right now, Massachusetts Advocates for Children (MAC) and the Education Law Task Force are championing two pieces of legislation to reduce school exclusion for disciplinary reasons and, by doing so, reduce school dropouts; improve access to education among students excluded from school; and require the state’s Department of Elementary and Secondary Education to review and respond to school exclusion data. The Children’s Defense Fund has endorsed both bills. MAC also is championing a new bill to ensure schools have the supports and tools they need to become safe, supportive learning environments that result in far fewer school exclusions. If successful, these pieces of legislation could become a model for effectively curbing these policies’ negative impact.
All of this work has special implications in Massachusetts because that state spends six times more per prisoner than per public school pupil—a greater disparity than in any other state. The most recent data show that in 2007 Massachusetts spent $78,580 per prisoner and only $12,857 per pupil. That’s a pretty dumb investment policy. Sound fiscal policy means investing in early childhood development and education especially in these economic hard times. Intervening early not only saves lives and futures, it saves money. Zero tolerance discipline policies aren’t helping the children who need intervention the most at all. Instead, they are excluding thousands of students from school every year—including many students who most need to be in class—and making those children even more likely to end up trapped in the destructive, expensive prison pipeline. These kinds of policies deserve a failing grade and correction.
Follow Marian Wright Edelman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ChildDefender
Christine Sismondo: America's Drunken History (PHOTOS)
My niece is a teacher now and she has had to take hand to hand combat lessons to live through the school day. She's been physically assaulted unsuccessfully three times in 6 months by her young black male students. She's tough. She finally gave up and took an easier teaching job in a better school district.
She said the parents of these kids are mutant ignorant and don't give a damn.
To paraphrase Aristotle, our failure to enlighten our children, will be our demise..
For example, school rule states no physical fighting, but the parent tells their kid to "bloody 'em good". The school rule states students should be on time, but students are chronically late because the parent "isn't a morning person". School rules state we should use civil language, but students swear at the teacher and, when called, the parent swears at the principal.
Not all parents are good role models for their children, and children learn and do what they live. Parents are the first, and most influential, teachers--until adolescence, and then peers take over.
Family freindly indeed!!
We are one of the LEAST family freindly countries in the western world.All TALK!!
THEN, when they do so, they are excoriated for being too strict.
Sheesh. Is it any wonder teacher's in urban, poor and predominantly minority schools are often the most dissatisfied or are rated so poorly?
My grandson @ 9 years was suspended for an alleged theft of a video game from a school he did not attend, but because he was in the building with the person who actually stole the game, the district's policy was to suspend, regardless. Zero-tolerance. The video game was returned before the suspension was incurred, but he was suspended anyway.
We have much to learn to create conducive environments for learning, but parents really need to take a greater role in teaching their children about responsible behavior.
Yes, we can have in-school detention, but we need a room and a person to supervise the students. Sometimes there isn't room, to take an aide to supervise them means students in classes don't get extra help.
The incidents listed in newspapers that people get so upset about often don't tell the whole story. Students are often repeat offenders and their behavior escalates. Privacy precludes the school from giving the students' history of behavior and parents sure aren't going to divulge that to a reporter.
Schools have very few resources and even less recourse when a student misbehaves and disrupts teaching and learning. It's easy to criticize from the outside. Those who haven't had that responsibility should think twice before complaining that schools are the problem and are the entities responsible for the prison pipeline.
I've been a special education teacher for 15 years.It's only a thankless job as far as policitians and the public because so many denigrate teachers. I see my students learning and growing, so it isn't thankless or unimportant work to me.
As far as the "prison pipeline", many years ago I volunteered in a prison for young men. We volunteers guided them through a program when they were close to being released to help them think through better decisions so they might avoid jail again. It's odd how people complain about schools sending people off to prison and ruin young lives, when the prison system is doing so little to help people turn their lives around when in prison.
Schools don't increase the number of people going to prison; individual choice and our communities to that. But I don't see widespread programs for those who go to prison and, since the recidivism rate is high, I don't know why there isn't more attention given to that. I think the very best and most effective program I've ever heard of is Delancey Street (www.delanceystreet.org) and there should be more of those in our country.
However, with the recent publicity about her son's comments about public school and her supporting him, it's clear that Wright Edelman is on the same agenda as many, and that is to put an end to public education and undermine those who work there at every opportunity.
Even though she wrote that great book on parenting, I see no mention of parents' responsibility for the behavior of their children in this article. Sometimes suspension are not for the student, but to get the attention of the parents because it's impossible to engage them in a positive way.
What would Wright Edelman do--or any of those criticizing schools about suspensions--about parents who don't return phone calls, who tell school staff not to bother them (we've had parents tell us "My kid is your problem until 3:30. Don't call me again"), who refuse to answer the phone when the school calls (caller ID alerts them) so we have to use our personal cell phones instead?
Another context I have to provide is that the incidents reported in this article were not contextualized. In the discipline system, just like our justice system, there is the factor of "criminal history". Small infractions such as throwing something at another student doesn't usually result in suspension in my school; but if it's a repeat offender who's been in a lot of trouble and has already been given the ultimatum, then yes, it's possible. You have to take it to the next level, if verbal warnings clearly aren't getting through to the student.
Most importantly, since we banned paddling, what's going to be the replacement? It's easy to point fingers at paddling and suspensions being ineffective methods of punishment, which I totally agree. I'll tell you there's so much resistence from parents these days it's almost impossible to reinforce any form of discipline. If kids get away with murder at home (which is metaphorically becoming the norm), no discipline system we do at school is going to change the child. How about some parental support for educators first, then together we can figure out what's the best discipline system?
As for banning paddling, we haven't banned paddling. Even though it has been shown to impair education, create major resentment and hostility in students, invite disastrous abuses, and be used specifically to punish racial minorities and those with disabilities, corporal punishment remains in effect in many states. See e.g. http://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/humanrights/impairingeducation.pdf. I find it hilarious that you are arguing that you, as a teacher, should have the right to use a form of punishment on children that is unconstitutional to use against convicted murderers.
The link you provided is broken, but if it's a case filed by aclu, I suppose there's been a legal challenge, and that would mean corporeal punishment is indeed illegal. If you say there're still places in some dark corners of America where corporeal punishment is still in practice, I believe you; however, I've not actually heard of it in my professional life. Again, you can't generalize out of a few extreme cases, like my original post said. If you're saying it's still legal in most places, please provide link.
On a personal level, I agree that a student defending himself should not be punished together with the bully. However, I must caution you. I've dealt with cases where a bully beat up somebody and claimed that he was victimized first. Some younger students are unable to know the difference, thus the policy of zero tolerance on physical violence regardless of the cause. Again, I agree with you on this and wish there was a better system. And I do sympathize with your bad experiences.
Also, just curious, did you speak up on the student's behalf? If so, did the teacher have a rationale for her system? Was it the same for all students, or did she change it for one student so he didn't get what he earned?
Yes, I spoke up frequently on his behalf showing how much work he accomplished each hour to prove he deserved this. I went to the owner/director with my concerns a few times too. She always let me give him the extra tokens after hearing how great he had been. She later told me, after that other woman we let go in the recession like me, that she knew what was going on and didn't think she should have done it. He had one session at her table that went bad so she didn't believe me when I said he was great. She mostly was fair, only doing that for kids with more work that could be accomplished in an hour (like distracted second graders) but he was the only one with that reading level.