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.
Marian
Wright Edelman is President of the Children's Defense Fund whose Leave No Child
Behind®mission is to ensure every child a Healthy Start, a Head Start, a Fair
Start, a Safe Start and a Moral Start in life and successful passage to
adulthood with the help of caring families and communities. For more
information go to www.childrensdefense.org.
