Poster #69 - Disciplined and Disconnected: How Students Experience Exclusionary Discipline and the Promise of Non-Exclusionary Alternatives

• In Event: 1-169 - Poster Session 04
  In Poster Session: PS 04 Section - Education, Schooling

Integrative Statement

Historically, schools’ discipline practices have operated on a deterrence model of behavior management, seeking to motivate compliant behavior through the fear of punishment (Piquero et al., 2011). Often, these punishments take the form of removing the student from school for a prescribed amount of time (e.g., suspension, expulsion). Exclusion from school deprives youth of opportunities to connect with their schools and the people in them, leading them to disengage from their education and putting them on a trajectory toward negative academic and life outcomes (Balfanz, Byrnes & Fox, 2014). Suspensions and expulsions also lead to social isolation and a lack of adult supervision and support (Losen & Gillespie, 2012).

As research increasingly demonstrates the detrimental effect of exclusion on educational and life outcomes, policymakers and schools are seeking ways for school discipline policy and practice to be more rooted in understanding the needs and experiences of students. (APA Task Force, 2008; Peterson & Skiba, 2010; Skiba, Gregory & Mediratta, 2017). However, there have been few inquiries into the ways that youth experience exclusionary discipline and how school administrators think about and implement alternative practices. The current study explores the perspectives of both young people as they navigate experiences of exclusionary discipline, and administrators implementing alternative disciplinary practices in an effort to enhance the educational experiences of their students.

For the first part of this study we conducted five group interviews with a total of 38 young people between the ages of 11 and 19, who had firsthand experience with exclusionary discipline. Our analysis of these data revealed themes regarding how disciplinary interventions led the youth to disconnect from school. Specifically, the interventions the youth experienced often did not focus on the root causes of their behavior, made them feel unvalued and unwelcome, and disrupted their learning. The participants explained that discipline felt inconsistent in terms of how it was implemented and who received it. As a consequence, they felt negatively labeled based on their race and other factors, and without the opportunity to explain their perspective or advocate for themselves. The young people wanted to engage in school and succeed, but overwhelmingly felt that their schools’ disciplinary practices inhibited their ability to do so.

For the second portion of the study we conducted three key informant interviews with secondary school administrators implementing discipline practices other than exclusion at their schools. These school leaders affirmed many of the sentiments expressed by young people and offered insights about the promise of non-exclusionary practices and what is necessary for their successful implementation. They indicated that shifting discipline practices requires shifts in mindsets, including making student learning the ultimate goal, seeing behavior as a communication of needs, and placing a priority on building trusting relationships.

Taken together, these perspectives make clear the harms associated with exclusion as a dominant approach to school discipline and the importance of exploring alternative practices that might lead to better outcomes for schools and the young people who attend them. Implications for policy and practice will be discussed.

Authors

• Max Margolius, Boston University
  Presenting Author

• Elizabeth Pufall Jones, Center for Promise
  Non-Presenting Author

• Jon Zaff, Center for Promise
  Non-Presenting Author

• Miriam Rollock, Center for Promise
  Non-Presenting Author

• Catalina Tang, Boston University
  Non-Presenting Author

• Marissa Cole, Center for Promise
  Non-Presenting Author