Abstract
Exclusionary discipline practices are continuously pushing economically disadvantaged students out of their traditional home campuses instead of rehabilitating them with the ability to become productive members of their communities. This chapter explores the development of exclusionary discipline consequences and the known outcomes of these consequences on economically disadvantaged students. The chapter provides background information regarding the initial appeal of exclusionary discipline practices followed by the subsequent harm it created for certain groups of students. The chapter identifies the possibilities for decreasing the use of exclusionary discipline by adopting strategies like PBIS and restorative justice practices. The chapter closes with a discussion of the importance of schools moving away from exclusionary discipline practices. The authors argue transparency from school leaders with school community members is essential for the initial and continued success of restorative practices and the curbing of the damage of exclusionary consequences for students.
TopBackground: The Development, Increase, And Damage Of Exclusionary Discipline Practices
After an uptick in school shootings during the first half of the 1990s, legislatures passed the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994 (GFSA) to curtail the increase in school violence. With the passing of GFSA, schools also began to adapt their student codes of conduct to reflect the new act and increase their use of exclusionary discipline practices, those which exclude students from their typical classroom. Schools needed to take swift action to quell concerns of the recent spike in violence and drug-related incidents (Skiba, 2014; Skiba & Losen, 2015; Skiba & Peterson, 1999; Tajalli & Garba, 2014). Shortly after the GFSA was signed, school leaders in many districts adopted zero-tolerance policies. Though created out of concern for the well-being and safety of students, the GFSA became a gateway for school administrators to assign exclusionary discipline for offenses that were not safety concerns. Fear has been a primary driving force behind the adoption of zero-tolerance and exclusionary discipline policies, making communities feel that if minor disruptions are not punished, they will lose control (Skiba, 2014).
Exclusionary discipline practices assigned to students who commit infractions under zero-tolerance policies include out-of-school suspension (OSS), in-school suspension (ISS), and expulsion (Cruz et al., 2021). The most commonly used form of exclusionary discipline is out-of-school suspension. When an administrator assigns a student OSS, the student is removed from the campus and asked to stay home for a few days based on the offense and what guidelines or policy each district follows. School districts also use ISS to keep students in school but separated from their peers after a discipline incident. Schools that use ISS have students remain on school grounds, but the student is isolated to the assigned ISS classroom. In some schools, the students are assigned to cubicle-like seating arrangements to not engage with other students in the room. Students who have committed an offense that falls under the category of drugs or violence are assigned to a Disciplinary Alternative Education Program (DAEP). These programs are used to house students for an extended period outlined by the school districts’ board policy and student code of conduct. Some DAEPs are housed within the traditional school in a separate classroom. Still, most school districts also have an off-campus DAEP option in which the student is removed from their traditional home school to attend DAEP for the recommended days after a discipline hearing.
Key Terms in this Chapter
Restorative Practices: Discipline practices guide students to accept responsibility for their actions and repair damaged relationships through counseling and other reflective practices.
Disciplinary Alternative Education Program (DAEP): The Disciplinary Alternative Education Program is implemented in schools for students recommended serving a specified number of days after a discipline hearing for behavior offenses. DAEPs are housed away from the general population in schools, including separate school buildings.
Exclusionary Discipline Practices: Consequences including Out-of-School-Suspension (OSS) and DAEP are considered exclusionary discipline practices since they remove students from traditional home campuses.
PBIS: Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports is a program that teaches school administrators to use student data to learn how different discipline strategies affect students in their school, helping them set goals to support further the success of all students ( Center on PBIS, 2021 ).
IASA: Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994 is intended to help disadvantaged students increase technology in education, keep schools and communities safe and drug-free, and prevent students from dropping out.
GFSA: The Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994 deriving from the IASA intended to decrease the uptick in violence and drugs in school.
Zero-Tolerance Policies: Policies that were put into place by school districts after the launch of the GFSA, in which school districts declared their schools zero-tolerance sites for offenses pertaining to drugs, alcohol, and violence.
Discretionary Reasons: Students are recommended to DAEP for reasons that are considered non-mandatory, meaning they do not have ties to a criminal report. Some reasons include class disruption, insubordination, and dress-code offenses.