On the basis of a secondary analysis of survey data collected from 1,872 secondary school principals in the 2005–2006 School Survey on Crime and Safety, we examined the frequency of and reasons for severe disciplinary actions and the relationship between school characteristics and severe disciplinary actions. We found that severe disciplinary actions were frequently taken for insubordinations and physical attacks or fights rather than for weapon-related problems. After controlling for the level of students’ problem behaviors, we found that schools serving a larger number of disadvantaged students (underachievers, special education students, ethnic minority students, and students in poverty) tend to use severe disciplinary actions more frequently than do schools with a smaller number of disadvantaged students. Recommendations for ameliorating this inequality in disciplinary practices are offered.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AchillesG. M., McLaughlinM. J., & CroningerR. G. (2007). Sociocultural correlates of disciplinary exclusion among students with emotional, behavioral and learning disabilities in the SEELS national datasets. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 15(1), 33–45.
American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force. (2008). Are zero tolerance policies effective in the schools? An evidentiary review and recommendations. American Psychologist, 63(9), 852–862.
4.
AndersonK. A., HowardK. E., & GrahamA. (2007). Reading achievement, suspension, and African American males in middle school. Middle Grades Research Journal, 2(2), 43–63.
ArciaE. (2006). Achievement and enrollment status of suspended students: Outcomes in a large, multicultural school district. Education and Urban Society, 38(3), 359–369.
7.
ArciaE. (2007). A comparison of elementary/K-8 and middle schools’ suspension rates. Urban Education, 42(5), 456–469.
8.
ArumR. (2003). Judging school discipline: The crisis of moral authority.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
9.
BrownT. M. (2007). Lost and turned out: Academic, social and emotional experiences of students excluded from school. Urban Education, 42(5), 432–455.
10.
BransE. J., MooreE., StephanS. H., PruittD., & WeistM. D. (2005). The impact of school mental health service on out-of-school suspension rates. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34(1), 23–30.
11.
CarterS. L. (1998). Civility: Manners, morals, and the etiquette of democracy.New York: Basic Books.
12.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2006). Youth risk behavior surveillance: United States, 2005.Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Service. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/SS/SS5505.pdf
13.
ChristieC., NelsonC. M., & JolivetteK. (2004). School characteristics related to the use of suspension. Education and Treatment of Children, 27(4), 509–526.
14.
CortezA., & MontecelM. R. (1999). Disciplinary alternative education programs in Texas: What is known. What is needed.San Antonio, TX: Intercultural Development Research Association. Retrieved from http://www.idra.org/images/stories/alted.pdf
15.
CostenbaderV. K., & MarksonS. (1994). School suspension: A survey of current policies and practices. NASSP Bulletin, 78, 103–107.
16.
DinkesR., CataldiE. F., & Lin-KellyW. (2007). Indicators of school crime and safety: 2007 (NCES No. 2008-021). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2008/2008021.pdf
17.
EitleT. M., & EitleD. J. (2004). Inequality, segregation, and the overrepresentation of African Americans in school suspensions. Sociological Perspectives, 47(3), 269–287.
18.
EssexN. L. (2000). Zero tolerance approach to school violence: Is it going too far?American Secondary Education, 29(2), 37–40.
19.
FenningP., & RoseJ. (2007). Overrepresentation of African American students in exclusionary discipline: The role of school policy. Urban Education, 42(6), 536–559.
20.
ForniP. M. (2002). Choosing civility: The twenty-five rules of considerate conduct.New York: St. Martin's Press.
21.
FriedmanH. (1968). Magnitude of experimental effect and a table for its rapid estimation. Psychological Bulletin, 70(4), 245–251.
22.
HunterR. C., & WilliamsD. G. (2003). Zero-tolerance policies: Are they effective?School Business Affairs, 69(7), 6–10.
23.
JohnsonR., & BushL. V. (2005). Leading the school through culturally responsive inquiry. In EnglishF. W. (Ed.), Sage handbook of educational leadership: Advances in theory, research and practice (pp. 269–296). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
24.
KauffmanP., ChenX., ChoyS., PeterK., RuddyS. A., MillerA. K. (2001). Indicators of school crime and safety: 2001. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/2002113a.pdf
25.
KrezmienM. P., LeoneP. E., & AchillesG. M. (2006). Suspension, race, and disability: Analysis of statewide practices and reporting. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 14(4), 217–226.
26.
LawrenceR. (2007). School crime and juvenile justice (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
27.
MellardD., & SeybertL. (1996). Voices about school suspension, expulsion, and safety.Lawrence, KS: Center for Research on Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED403639)
28.
MukuriaG. (2002). Disciplinary challenges: How do principals address this dilemma?Urban Education, 37(3), 432–452.
NeimanS., & DeVoeJ. F. (2009). Crime, violence, discipline, and safety in U.S. public schools: Findings from the School Survey on Crime and Safety 2007–08 (NCES No. 2009-326). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Science. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009326.pdf
32.
NicholsJ. D. (2004). An exploration of discipline and suspension data. Journal of Negro Education, 73(4), 408–423.
33.
NolleK. L., GuerinoP., & DinkesR. (2007). Crime, violence, discipline, and safety in U.S. public schools: Findings from the School Survey on Crime on Crime and Safety: 2005-06 (NCES No. 2007-361). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2007/2007361.pdf
Public Agenda for Common Good. (2004). Teaching interrupted: Do discipline policies in today's public schools foster the common good? Retrieved from http://www.publicagenda.org
36.
Raffaele MendezL. M., & KnoffH. M. (2003). Who gets suspended from school and why: A demographic analysis of schools and disciplinary infractions in a large school district. Education and Treatment of Children, 26(V), 30–51.
37.
Raffaele MendezL. M., KnoffH. M., & FerronJ. M. (2002). School demographic variables and out-of-school suspension rates: A quantitative and qualitative analysis of a large ethnically diverse school district. Psychology in the Schools, 39(3), 259–277.
38.
RauschM. K., & SkibaR. (2004a). Disproportionality in school discipline among minority students in Indiana: Description and analysis. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED488897)
RauschM. K., & SkibaR. (2006). Discipline, disability, and race: Disproportionality in Indiana schools. Education Policy Brief, 4(10). Bloomington, IN: Center for Evaluation and Education Policy. Retrieved from http://ceep.indiana.edu/equity
RuddyS. A., NeimanS., BauerL., SwaimN. L., ThomasT. L., & ParmerR. J. (2009). 2005-06 School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS) Survey documentation for data users (NCESNo. 2010-320). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010320.pdf
43.
RyanJ. B., KatsiyannisA., PetersonR., & ChmelarR. (2007). IDEA 2004 and disciplining students with disabilities. NASSP Bulletin, 91(2), 130–140.
44.
SheldonS. B., & EpsteinJ. L. (2000). Improving student behavior and school discipline with family and community involvement. Education and Urban Society, 35(1), 4–26.
45.
ShieldsC. M., & SayaniA. (2005). Leading in the midst of diversity. In EnglishF. W. (Ed.). Sage handbook of educational leadership: Advances in theory, research and practice (pp. 380–402). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
46.
SkibaR. J. (2000). Zero tolerance, zero evidence: An analysis of school disciplinary practice. Retrieved July 31, 2009, from http://www.indiana.edu/~safeschl/ztze.pdf
47.
SkibaR., & EdlH. (2004). The disciplinary practices survey: How do Indiana's principals feel about discipline. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED488898)
48.
SkibaR. J., EatonJ., & SotooN. (2004). Factors associated with state rates of out-of-school suspension and expulsion.Bloomington, IN: Center for Evaluation.
49.
SkibaR. J., & KnestingK. (2001). Zero tolerance, zero evidence: An analysis of school disciplinary practice. In SkibaR., & NoamG. G. (Eds.), New directions for youth development (No. 92) (pp. 17–43). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
50.
SkibaR. J., MichaelR. S., NardoA. C., & PetersonR. L. (2002). The color of discipline: Sources of racial and gender disproportionality in school punishment. Urban Review, 34(4), 317–342.
51.
SkibaR., PetersonR., & WilliamsT. (1997). Office referrals and suspension: Disciplinary intervention in middle schools. Education & Treatment of Children, 20(3), 295–315.
52.
SkibaR. J., Poloni-StaudingerL., SimmonsA. B., Feggins-AzzizR., & ChungC. (2005). Unproven links: Can poverty explain ethnic disproportionality in special education?Journal of Special Education, 39(3), 130–144.
Texas Education Agency. (2007). Disciplinary alternative education program practices (Policy Research Report No. 17). Austin, TX: Author. Retrieved from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/research/pdfs/prr17.pdf
55.
ThornberryT. P., & KrohnM. D. (2000). The self-report method for measuring delinquency and crime. Criminal Justice, 4, 33–83.
56.
ThorntonC. H., & TrentW. (1988). School desegregation and suspension in East Baton Rouge Parish: A preliminary report. Journal of Negro Education, 57, 482–501.
57.
TownsendL. B. (2000). The disproportionate discipline of African American learners: Reducing suspension and expulsion. Exceptional Children, 66(3), 381–391.
