General Curriculum Students



DISCIPLINARY DISPARITIES

Disciplinary Disparities in American Schools

Margaret England, Stacia Robbins, Byron Smith, and Bob Weiss

Florida Gulf Coast University

Abstract

The disparity of disciplinary methods used to manage student behavior for various student populations was investigated in this report. Groups examined included general education students who are members of the ethnic majority in their schools, minority students, and ESE students. Treatment of student misconduct in private schools was also examined. Information was gathered from Internet and library review of journal articles, as well as personal communications. Results are summarized and recommendations for addressing the disparity are addressed.

Introduction

For purposes of this report, we have taken the definition of discipline put forth by Eggleton (2001): “Discipline is training which corrects, molds, or perfects, the mental faculties or moral character; obedience to authority or rules; punishment to correct poor behavior.” Based on our research on discipline as it is applied to a variety of student populations, we have made the following observations regarding the current status of disciplinary practices in the United States.

General Curriculum Students: School-Wide Discipline

Students in the general curriculum population in the public schools are subject to a wide range of potential consequences for infractions of the school rules, depending upon the authority delegated to the principal by federal, state, and district law and policy. mood of the authority. The key to successful school discipline for the general curriculum student is to have a school wide discipline plan and a positive school climate (Eggleton, 2001).

Laws governing school discipline are found in federal statutes. “The right to procedural protections in student discipline is grounded primarily in the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” (Education Law Center, 2001) The federal government increased its involvement in school discipline in 1994 when President Clinton signed the Gun-Free Act into law. This law, which mandates expulsion of a student for possession of a weapon, also provides for modification of the expulsion by the “chief administrative officer of each local school district on a case-by-case basis.“(Skiba, 1999) President Bush’s budget proposal for the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 (FY) 2003 includes “$664.3 million for the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities programs to implement drug and violence prevention programs to make sure U.S. students will not be trapped in persistently dangerous schools.” (U.S.D.O.E., 2002) Since early in his campaign President Bush emphasized his belief that the character education funding used “to foster moral character and civic virtue in young people “needed to be increased. Diane G. Berreth, the deputy director of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development stated that “the selection of core moral values be a local process rather than specified in federal legislation”. She did feel that the federal government could provide seed money for character education and fund for a national clearinghouse. (Robelen, 2001) Paul Gathercoal defines Judicious Discipline as character Education, which is “a philosophy and framework for classroom management and school discipline”.

Each state has laws and policies that address school discipline, the rights of students, and the responsibilities of the school districts, which need to comply with federal statutes. One of the most controversial laws is the state’s right to allow corporal punishment in the schools. Organizations devoted to the welfare of children, including “the American Psychological Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, the National Education Association, the National PTA, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, have position papers and opposing corporal punishment in the schools.” (Hyman, 2000) Almost all Western democracies and 27 of our states ban corporal punishment in schools. Florida is one of the 23 mainly Southern states that allow paddling in the schools. Another controversy surrounds state zero tolerance legislation. According to the research done by Skiba and Peterson (1999) a number of states have amended their policies “to allow more flexibility for individual cases”.

School districts policies and procedures contain legal references to federal and state statutes. These policies cover the school official’s authority, outline grounds for discipline intervention, and discipline procedures. (Hendry County, 2002) According to Skiba and Peterson (1999) many school districts adopted “so-called zero tolerance discipline policies” which included “severe penalties for any kind of school disruption”. Suits against school districts over zero tolerance have been for the most part unsuccessful, however the reaction to the cases has “created sharp divisions in the schools and communities”. (Skiba, 1999) They found cases where school administrators and school administrators ” did not back down to the public pressure over zero tolerance. These officials often blamed federal and state law for tying their hands or that they found zero tolerance necessary “to send a message to disruptive students.” (Skiba, 1999)

Skiba’s (1999) zero tolerance research includes information from national news articles of incidences leading to student’s suspension or expulsion from school. Weapon-related incidences included a seventeen-year-old junior being expelled from school for shooting a paper clip with a rubber band, which missed his classmate, but broke the skin of a cafeteria worker. The student was taken to county jail for seven hours, charged with misdemeanor battery, and “advised by school officials to drop out of school.” A nine-year-old was expelled for one day for having a manicure kit found on the way to school that contained a 1” knife. Two separate drug-related zero tolerance events included a seventh-grader and a six-year-old sharing cough drops with friends. Both students were suspended. Other incidences included a twelve-year-old who scuffled with classmates “when they taunted him for being fat”. This boy was “expelled for violation of the zero tolerance policy toward fighting”. A six-year-old was suspended for one day for kissing a girl, which was in violation of the “school rule prohibiting unwarranted and unwelcome touching”. (Skiba, 1999)

Zero tolerance and corporal punishment can temporarily stop a behavior, but they do not teach a new behavior. Eggleton (2001) and Skiba (1999) found virtually no data to support the reduction of school violence in schools using zero tolerance. Eggleton found that schools with “high rates of corporal punishment also have high rates of suspensions and are generally more punitive in all discipline responses than schools with low rates of corporal punishment”. Both Eggleton and Skiba (1999) agree that a school wide discipline policy is the answer to the reduction in school discipline problems while teaching new positive behaviors.

Schools need to develop and implement behavior plans that address “the entire school, the classroom, areas outside the classroom.’ (SDDF, 2000) There are numerous plans for developing school-wide discipline planes. In looking at three examples of guidelines for developing school-wide discipline plans it is important to note that educational leaders need to seek “input from administration, faculty, non-instructional staff, the student body, parents, and other members of the community.” (SDDF, 2000)

George Sugai, of the Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports provides the following steps in developing a school-wide discipline plan.

Proactive Approach to School-Wide Discipline (SDDF, 2000)

|Behavioral Expectations are Defined. |Behavioral Expectations are Taught |Appropriated Behaviors are Acknowledged. |

|Behavioral Errors are Corrected Proactively|Program Evaluations and Adaptations are |Administrative Support and Involvement Are |

| |Made by a Team. |Active. |

|Individual Student Support Systems are Integrated with School-Wide Discipline Systems. |

The Beach Center on Families and Disability (1998) recommends the following steps for school-wide behavior systems.

School-wide Positive Behavioral Support Systems (Beach, 1998)

|Define expectations and be careful not to|Teach students right from the start of the |Provide instruction in self-control and |

|overwhelm students with too many |year about the programs and continue that |social skills strategies for all students. |

|expectations. |instruction throughout the year. | |

|Set up a reward system that uses creative |Give immediate feedback on wrong behavior |Recognize that about 5% of students have |

|and individualized rewards. |and create limits that make challenging |challenging behavior. |

| |behavior unproductive for students. | |

|Restructure problem settings. |Involve all school employees. |Monitor improvement. |

Another behavior model Judicious Discipline (Character Education) features a school management system in which the students design rules by rewording the “four arguments educators can use to limit a student’s individual rights.” These “have been winnowed from two hundred years of U.S. constitutional history”. (Gathercoal, 2001)

The compelling state interests are:

|Property Loss and Damage: an interest, which acts as |Threat to Health and Safety: an interest that serves a |

|stewards for the care and appropriate use of individual and |fundamental purpose of government to protect the health and|

|state owned property. |safety of students who attend public schools. |

|Legitimate Educational Purpose: an interest that keeps in |Serious Disruption of the Educational Process: an interest |

|countenance administrators’, teachers’, and the educational |empowering schools with the professional responsibility to |

|institution’s license to make arbitrary decisions that are |deny student rights that seriously disrupt student |

|based on sound educational practice and the mission of the |activities. |

|school. | |

During a democratic class meeting students develop a set of expectations. The expectations are signed by all the students and posted in the classroom. An example of a third grade classroom’s Positive Behavioral Statements and expectations (rules) are:

Third Grade Classroom’s Positive Behavioral Statements and Expectations

|Acting in a Safe and Healthy Way |Treat All Property with Respect |

|Walk in the school- Follow playground rules- Keep hands and feet |Take care of furniture – books- bathrooms- computers and all |

|yourself- Use a person’s first name when speaking- Follow bus |personal property- Ask before using other people’s property. |

|rules- Use furniture correctly. | |

|Respect the Right and Needs of Others. |Take Responsibility for Learning: |

|Keep hands to yourself- Work without disturbing others- Cooperate|Listen to others- Do your homework and return it on time- Try you|

|to help others learn- Use respectful language- Guard the process |hardest and do your best work- Be prepared for school- pencils, |

|of learning |books, and folders- Keep track of materials. |

Federal, state, and district governments have developed laws and policies concerning student discipline in the public schools. . The responsibility for developing and implementing school-wide discipline policies rests with the schools themselves. All three of school-wide discipline plans used in this paper stress that expectations be defined and taught. In the first two the prevention specialists and other educators developed the rules while in the character model example students developed positive expectations using the four compelling state interests. The purpose of these plans is to develop a positive school climate. These plans must be continue to be developed and refined to meet our student’s needs and circumstances. Administrators need to take into account that we “are a nation of humans, not robots” when applying discipline rules and policies. (Abramson, 1996)

Discipline of Minority Students

Racial disparities in discipline

For more than 25 years, numerous studies have shown a significant disparity among racial groups in school discipline programs. While many of the studies reviewed in this report focused on the problems encountered by African American students, the factors that have been identified apply to members of other racial minorities. The manifestation of the disparity may take a different form, but the dynamics are often the same. Minority students, especially those identified as African Americans, are referred for disciplinary infractions, and receive exclusionary penalties, at a rate that dramatically exceeds their percentage of the school population (Skiba, 2000).

Disproportionate rates of referral for disciplinary infractions. Skiba (2000) reported on a study of a large Midwestern school system with 11,000 middle school students. He found that the rate of referral for African American students was more than double that for white students. Further, the reason for referral did not support the notion that African American students are more “boisterous”, or act out more than white students. In the Skiba study, whites tended to be referred for “vandalism, obscene language, leaving without permission,” while African American students were referred for “disrespect, excessive noise, threat, or loitering.”

Disproportionate rates of discipline resulting in exclusion from access to education. In 1975, the Children’s Defense Fund examined data collected by the Office of Civil Rights from almost 3,000 school districts from across the nation. They found that more than two-thirds of the districts had rates of suspension for African Americans that were higher than whites. A similar study by OCR (1993) found that while African Americans composed 8.23% of the total student population, they received corporal punishment or suspension at a rate more than three times their percentage in the population. Davis & Johnson (1994) reviewed data from 25,000 eighth graders in a national longitudinal sample, and found suspension rates for African American males were more than any other group. Garibaldi (1992) studies a New Orleans school district, and reported that while African American males composed 43% of the school population, they received 65% of the district’s suspensions and 80% of the expulsions. Skiba, Peterson, & Williams (1997) reported that African American children in urban schools received more office referrals, more suspensions and expulsions, and fewer instances of less punitive discipline than any other ethnic group. Gordon (2000) studied 12 school districts in cities across the nation, and found that in every district the percentage of African Americans suspended or expelled exceeded their percentage in the population. Gordon’s data also showed that Hispanic and Native American students were suspended or expelled in disproportionate numbers in every district surveyed, while whites were underrepresented in exclusionary data in every district.

Effects of exclusion on African American students. Exclusionary forms of discipline, whatever their merits in terms of protecting the school and its learning environment, have a devastating effect on the individual students who experience them. Suspensions in some states begin as early as kindergarten, and begin a cycle of failures that often ends in expulsion or dropping out. Generation Y, a community organization involved in collecting the data studied by Gordon, described the impact of this exclusion as follows: “You don’t learn. You fall behind. You get a negative attitude about school.” This negativity increases the likelihood of further episodes of conflict, which are even more likely to lead to additional, longer, and more severe exclusions. Students who perceive the disparity may easily interpret it as rejection, and consequently develop low self-esteem (DeRidder, 1991). A negative self-fulfilling prophecy may develop as students come to believe that it is not possible for them to abide by the rules. If the disparity is widespread, the self-fulfilling prophecy may become a collective sense of futility that permeates the school culture. The students at greatest risk of suspension are those that are already performing poorly (Gordon, 2000), though these are the students who can least afford to be removed from those educational opportunities.

Factors in racial bias in the schools

Several factors have been investigated as potential sources of racial bias in the schools. Some have expressed the belief that the behavior of minority students warrants sterner measures. Others have observed that the school environment is not a nurturing learning environment for minority children. Cultural conflicts between minority students and their teachers are often problematic, and communication problems may lead to further instances of misunderstanding and conflict.

Prejudice. Hull (1994) reported conversations with educational administrators who believe that African Americans “tend to be more boisterous.

School. There is a historic shortage of teachers who are members of minority groups. Not only does this deprive young minority students of successful role models of the same ethnicity, but it also leaves them with teachers who have little awareness of their culture. Even those who do have a minority teacher may still find that differences in social class, age, and background are significant barriers to understanding.

Cultural. Conflicts between the culture of African Americans and the majority culture of the school may also result in disciplinary referrals. Skiba (1997) cites examples of African American children who are accustomed to engaging in multiple activities, including conversations and physical movement, while working on a task. If the school’s expectation is based on cultural norms that require working independently on one task at a time, students who tend to “multitask” may be perceived as noncompliant or even insubordinate.

Fordham and Ogbu (1986) reported another potential response to rules that conflict with minority culture. They found that some African American high school students perceive behaving “appropriately” (as defined by the school) to be “acting white”, and they instead become defiantly oppositional.

Language and communication. One example of this defiance can be the use of non-standard English. Yet even when this dialect is not intended to be provocative, school personnel who are unfamiliar with it may easily misinterpret both the meaning and the tone of the communication. Both verbal and nonverbal messages are subject to misunderstanding. Patton & Townsend (1999) describe a style of communication that is popular among young African American girls, but that when observed by educators unfamiliar with the style is perceived as argumentative or even combative. Even the volume of the speech that characterizes members of different cultures can lead to disputes regarding compliance with the rules.

Proposed solutions

Townsend (2000) has offered several proposals to reduce the application of exclusionary discipline methods with minority students. While other researchers have proposed several of these recommendations, Townsend’s appears to be the most comprehensive outline for change. She also proposes the development of cultural brokers within the school to help minority students bridge the gap between their own culture and that of the majority culture.

Collecting and examining data. Gordon (2000) and others contend that the first step that must be taken is for districts to monitor and publish statistics on their rates of disciplinary sanctions for the various ethnic groups that compose their schools. Harry and Anderson (1995) proposed that a criterion could be that suspensions and expulsions would be considered disproportionate if the frequency with which they were administered to a particular group exceeded that group’s percentage of the school population by more than 10%. Inequities that appear from this analysis could then be addressed by various preventive measures.

The “So What” test. Townsend (2000) also proposed that school personnel carefully review their expectations to determine whether they serve an important purpose, or whether they reflect a desire to impose the classroom environment they prefer. Teachers are encouraged to ask themselves “so what?” to evaluate the importance of the rule to the student’s welfare and the accomplishment of learning goals. Skiba at al. (1997) describes a spiraling effect as minority students rebel against school rules they consider meaningless. Teachers react to the escalating confrontation, and feel justified in referring the students for discipline. The escalation continues, and the ultimate outcome is suspension or expulsion, which is appropriate at this point, and which excludes the student for misconduct that at the beginning would not have passed the “so what?” test.

Attitudes and expectations. A more challenging proposal would engage educators in a thoughtful examination of their own attitudes, values, and beliefs. Not only should they consider their educational philosophy, but their beliefs about families, society, and culture all affect their expectations and behavior toward minority students. The intent would be for teachers to identify behaviors and response styles that are potential sources of conflict between themselves and their students of color.

Classroom management and instruction. Some of the most popular sessions at teacher inservice conferences present various programs for classroom management. Many stress the importance of positive classroom control. Behavioral research has shown that effective learning occurs when the ratio of positive to negative interactions between a teacher and a student is at least 8 to 1. Townsend (2000) encouraged teachers to seek out opportunities to involve minority students, especially African American males, in “instruction that goes beyond discipline and management.” She cites research by Davis & Jordan (1994) that found a correlation between suspension rates and time spent on discipline-related matters. Kamps et al. (1989) compared urban and suburban classrooms, and found that while suburban teacher statements had largely academic content, teachers in inner city classes mostly involved “management commands.”

Teachers should also examine the lesson plan to ensure that learning styles, skills, and interests of minority students are included. Sleeter & Grant (1999) identified content, context, and mode as three aspects of teaching that can be altered to engage diverse students. Hale-Benson (1999) summarized extensive research that documented the tendency for African American children to engage in more physical movement than white children. Activities that are structured to require children to sit with little movement for extended periods tend to predispose African American students to engage in behavior that is “inappropriate” under the rules. Slavin (1987) encouraged collaborative and cooperative learning strategies as well suited to the needs of African American learners. Franklin (1992) encouraged the use of “varied interactive lessons that are creative and adequately paced” in order to be responsive to cultural diversity.

Cultural discontinuity. Ogbu (1982) described the cultural discontinuity that exists when minority students must be familiar and respond to both the forces of their own culture and that of the dominant culture. Teachers who are sensitive to these cultural differences can design and implement both instructional and classroom management strategies that accommodate such tendencies as the need of some African American students to engage in conversation that prepares them for the task to come.

Gay (1993) called for educators to become “cultural brokers,” finding aspects of minority student culture from which to bridge to mainstream cultural expectations.

Minimizing linguistic barriers. One of the roles of a “cultural broker” would be to keep current with the trendy slang that is a popular device for maintaining identity among subgroups. These “private” languages hold the potential for frequent misunderstandings, which cultural brokers would work to minimize.

Franklin (1992) and Hale-Benson (1986) both described the cultural discontinuity that can occur when a traditional African American learning style, “call and respond,” encounters a classroom expectation of passive listening or structured response pattern. Children who follow their traditional cultural norm may be perceived as behaving inappropriately, even though they are obviously engaged in the lesson. A cultural broker who is aware of “call and respond” can incorporate it as a valid approach, and proceed to teach other response methods that are traditional in the dominant culture.

Building relationships. Townsend led a study in 1996 that interviewed black high school students who had received frequent school suspensions. The factor most of these students identified as the change schools should make to help them be more successful was for their teachers to “get to know them” beyond the academic setting. Garibaldi (1992) interviewed black male students and their teachers. He found that 40% of the students believe that their teachers have lower goal expectations for them, and 60% feel their teachers do not provide adequate encouragement for them to succeed. Sixty percent of the teachers Garibaldi interviewed also felt their students would not go on to college, an ironic finding since 65% of the teachers were black themselves.

Townsend encouraged that teachers reach out to develop relationships with their students, especially those at risk of exclusion or dropping out.

Participation in school activities. Townsend also reported that African American students who do not perform well in school tend not to participate in school activities. She recommended that the schools should make committed efforts to involve these students in extra-curricular activities as an important means of increasing their sense of belonging (and thus reducing some of the key factors leading to exclusion).

Increased interest and relevance. Borrowing the marketing strategy of segmented markets, Townsend (2000) recommended identifying minority students for specially targeted strategies to make the traditional curriculum more interesting and relevant to these students. Her example includes using the students’ interest in video games to encourage reading (with video gaming magazines) and math (running a hypothetical video game rental business). Students can contribute their own activities to reinforce learning and sustain interest.

Family and community partnerships. Townsend stressed the importance to developing strong liaisons with the African American community, especially students’ families, for support and for insight into student interests, culture, and behavior.

Building cultural bridges. An important aspect of developing these partnerships involves the recognition that many African American families and even community leaders may have experienced the disparities that have schools are now trying to minimize, and may be distrustful or even hostile toward schools. Kunjufu (1983) reported that black parents and families may hold conspiracy theories about the educational system of their community. An example of working to repair these relationships would be enlisting a black community leader to assist in developing appropriate behavioral expectations that are meaningful to the students and thus less likely to provoke violations

Discipline of Exceptional Students

The discipline of students has been and will continue to be a problem for educators. Skiba, Peterson and Williams (1997) conducted a study that examined disciplinary practices in urban middle schools across two school systems. School disciplinary files were analyzed in order to examine the most common types of disciplinary referrals and consequences, the relationship between those, and other characteristics of the disciplinary incidents. Descriptive data about the relationship of disciplinary practices to demographics characteristics such as gender, race, special education students and the disability label was explored. In this study a total of 2,006 students were eligible for special education services. The largest special education category in the district was comprised of 982 students with learning disabilities, there were 580 students with mild or moderate mental handicaps, and 193 students were classified as emotional handicapped and 85 students were classified as communication handicapped.

Skiba, et.al. found that students labeled Emotionally Handicapped (EH) were more likely to receive a discipline referral than any other student in special or general education class. They also found that suspension accounts for 33.3 percent of all disciplinary actions, making suspension by far the most frequently used form of discipline. Harsher consequences, such as arrest or corporal punishment, are among those least used, but so are milder consequences, such as behavioral contracting, apology, or counseling. Students labeled emotionally handicapped were more likely to be suspended than all other students in special or general education, while both students classified as learning disabled or mildly mentally handicapped were suspended more often than students not served in special education. In conclusion, they found that there was an overrepresentation of exceptional students, which received referrals and suspensions when studying the office referrals, and suspension of students.

In a summary of IDEA 97 Jean Dayton (2000) reviews three categories of disciplinary actions and procedures. She summarizes the procedures for (1) disciplinary actions and procedures for the exclusion of students from their current educational placement of ten days or less, (2) disciplinary actions and procedures for suspensions/expulsions of more than ten days, and (3) disciplinary actions and procedures for suspensions/expulsions in cases involving weapons, drug offenses, and dangerousness to self or others.

Dayton states that school officials are allowed to remove students with disabilities from their current educational placement for not more than ten school days in any one school year without it being considered a change of placement. Free appropriate public education, a manifestation determination, and a functional analysis of behavior are not mandated for a ten-day suspension, but due process is required. In school suspension is not considered one of the ten days of suspension.

Discipline procedure for suspension/expulsion of more than ten days constitutes a change of placement and parents must be notified of decisions and of rights concerning the action to be taken before the date of the action, the IEP team must conduct a manifestation determination. The IEP team can determine if the behavior was or was not a manifestation of the behavior only after they have considered all relevant information including evaluation/diagnostic results, observations of the student, student’s IEP, and any new evidence presented. If the behavior was not a manifestation of the disability, the student can be disciplined under the general conduct code.

In disciplinary actions and procedures for suspensions/expulsions in cases involving weapons, drug offenses, and dangerousness to self or others, the school district has to prove by substantial evidence, that if the child remains in the current placement, injury to the child or others is likely to occur. A hearing officer must consider the appropriateness of the child’s current placement, and whether or not the school district has made reasonable efforts to minimize the risk of harm in the current placement. If the hearing officer determines that the student meets all of the requirements, the child may continue to participate in the general curriculum in another setting and continue to receive the services and modifications that will enable the child to meet the goals of the IEP, including the services and modifications described in the IEP and receive services and modifications designed to address the behavior and be placed in alternative settings (2001).

Discipline in Private Schools

This paper is based on an interview with the Principal of a local private school and on Internet references. (Mary Williams, Principal, Community Christian School, April 2002).

Private schools often have distinct advantages over their public-school counterparts: They can selectively admit students, require them to follow strict school rules, and ask disruptive ones to leave. (Heartland, 1997, p.1) Traditionally, this has given private schools better performance records in the area of discipline.

A board of directors, instead of elected officials, runs most private schools. These boards set policies for the school, so, policies will vary from school to school. The board can decide who gets in, what criteria a student must meet to be accepted into the school, and what guidelines a student must follow to stay in that school. Other than laws about discrimination, there are basically no federal guidelines that the private schools have to follow concerning these matters.

In Christian, Catholic, and other religion-based schools, prayer and counseling are the foundation of the disciplinary system. When a child first comes in to be disciplined, he is counseled on why what he did was wrong or inappropriate. He is counseled on a more desirable way to modify inappropriate behavior, is almost always prayed with, and sent back to class. Depending on the severity of the offense, the parent is contacted about the situation. Also depending on the severity of the offense, or the number of times a child has been referred to the office, other disciplinary actions are taken.

Many private schools do not accept students with special needs or program modification needs, etc. They are usually not equipped, trained, or funded to properly provide services to these children. Should they decide to accommodate a special needs child, they receive no federal, or public funding whatsoever. Also, should they decide to accept one of these children, the school is not obligated to overlook some of the child’s behaviors or modify the school wide discipline plan for this child.

Although the majority of private schools have a zero tolerance policy on drugs and weapons, they still have the option to exercise some flexibility when doling out consequences. Some factors that are taken into consideration should a drug or weapons offenses occur are: What is the child’s discipline record like? Was the offense committed with or without malicious intent? Was this purely an innocent situation (such as bringing a steak knife in the lunch box for cutting up the lunch)? Most of these situations are handled on a case-by-case basis.

The private school can expel students for certain offenses or for not maintaining a specified grade average. Students are given an opportunity to appeal an expulsion to the board.

Other disciplinary actions include detention, after school detention, in-school suspension, out of school suspension, suspension, and in some rare cases – corporal punishment. Most schools save corporal punishment as a last resort and must have a signed permission slip from the parent for the school to issue the punishment. The schools will give parents the option of coming to the schools and issuing the punishment themselves.

Private schools push for equality and strive to treat all students the same. The guidelines and consequences are the same for boys and girls regardless of race or nationality.

Summary

Students in the general curriculum are subject to a wide range of potential consequences for infractions of the school rules, depending upon the authority delegated to the principal by federal, state, and district law and policy. At the school level, consequences are likely to vary depending on the situation and mood of the authority, and tend to be subjective and unpredictable.

Minority students tend to experience a disproportionately high percentage of discipline referrals, and of more severe consequences for comparable infractions. There appears to be a tendency for similar behaviors to be interpreted as having different significance depending upon the race of the student.

Students with a diagnosed disability (ESE) often encounter significantly less severe consequences than those applied to their general education peers. This occurs in part because of the protections ESE students are granted under IDEA, and in part because of confusion about what disciplinary action IDEA does allow.

Private schools tend to have the most flexibility in imposing discipline. Indeed, they have the right to be selective in the initial enrollment of “high-risk” students, and are under no legal obligation to continue serving a child who poses significant disciplinary problems. On the other hand, private schools are perhaps the most vulnerable to political and financial pressures that can undermine equitable disciplinary practices.

References

Abramson, P. (1996, November). School Planning and Management, 35(11). Retrieved from

Beach Center on Families and Disability. (1998). Schoolwide PBS. Message posted to

Boykin, A.W. (1982). Task variability and the performance of black and white children. Vervistic explorations. Journal of Black Studies, 12, 469-485.

Davis, J.E., & Jordan, W.J. (1994). The effects of school context, structure, and experiences on African American males in middle and high schools. Journal of Negro Education, 63, 570-587.

Dayton, J. (2000). Discipline procedures for students with disabilities. The Clearing House, 73(3), 153-157.

DeRidder, L.M. (1991). How suspension and expulsion contribute to dropping out. The Education Digest, 44-47.

Education Law Center, Inc. (2001, February). Fairness in School Discipline: The Rights of Public School Students [ED 457 287].

Eggleton, T. (2001). Discipline in the Schools (ED 451 554, pp. 1-13).

Fordham, S., & Ogbu, J.U. (1986). Black students’ school success: Coping with the “burden of ‘acting white.’” The Urban Review, 18, 176-206.

Franklin, M.E. (1992). Culturally sensitive instructional practices for African-American learners with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 59, 115-122.

Garibaldi, A.M. (1992). Educating and motivating African American males to succeed. Journal of Negro Education, 61(1), 12-18.

Gathercoal, P., & NImmo, V. (2001). Judicious (Character Education) Discipline. In American Educational Research Association 2001 Annual Meeting (ED 453 124). Seattle, Washington: American Educational Research Association 2001 Annual Meeeting.

Gay, G. (1993). Building cultural bridges: A bold proposal for teacher education. Education and Urban Society, 25(3), 45-51.

Gordon, R., Piana, L.D., & Keleher, T. (2000) Facing the consequences: An examination of racial discrimination in U.S. Public Schools. Retrieved 4/16/02 from .

Hale-Benson, J.E. (1986). Black children: Their roots, culture, and learning styles (Rev. ed.). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Harry, B., & Anderson, M.G. (1995). The disproportionate placement of African American males in special education programs: A critique of the process. Journal of Negro Education, 53, 602-619.

Hendry County School Board. (2002). Hendry County School Board Policies and Procedures.

Hull, J.D. (1994). Do teachers punish according to race? Time, 143(14), 30.

Hyman, I. A., & Snook, P. A. (2000). Dangerous Schools and What You Can Do About Them. Phi Delta Kappan, 817, 489-501.

Kamps, D.M., Carter, J.J., Delquadri, J.C., Arreaga-Mayer, C., Terry, B., & Greenwood, C.R. (1989). School-based research and intervention. Education and Treatment of Children, 12, 359-389.

Kunjufu, J. (1983). Countering the conspiracy to destroy black boys. Chicago: African American Images.

Ogbu, J.U. (1982). Cultural discontinuities and schooling. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 13, 290-301.

Patton, J.M., & Townsend, B.L. (1999). Ethics, power, and privilege: Neglected considerations in the education of African American learners with special needs. Teacher Education and Special Education, 22, 276-286.

Phi Delta Kappa International. (1999, October). Fast Facts About School Violence. Fast Facts. Retrieved April 12, 2002, from

Robelen, E. W. (2001, March 21). Education Week. Retrieved April 14, 2002, from

Rose, L. C., & Gallup, A. M. (2001). The 33rd Annual Phi Delta Kappa Gallup Poll of the Publics Attitudes Toward The Public Schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(1), 41-58.

Safe, Disciplined, and Drug-Free Schools Project. (2000, August). Developing School-wide Discipline Plans. SDDFS Notes, 3(3). Retrieved April 1, 2002, from

Skiba, R. J., & Peterson, R. L. (1997). Office Referrals and Suspension: Disciplinary Intervention in Middle Schools. Education and Treatment of Children, 20(3), 395-315.

Skiba, R., & Peterson, R. (1999, March 23). The Dark Side of Zero Tolerance: Can Punishment Lead to Safe Schools? Phi Delta Kappan International Retrieved April 13, 2002, from

Skiba, R., Peterson R., & Williams T. (1997). Office referrals and suspension: disciplinary intervention in middle schools. Education and Treatment of Children, 20 (p. 312).

Skiba, R.J., Michael, R.S., Nardo, A.C., & Peterson, R. (2000). The color of discipline: Sources of racial and gender disproportionality in school punishment. Policy Research Report #SRS1, Indiana Education Policy Center.

Slavin, R.E. (1987). Cooperative learning: Student teams: What research says to the teacher on cooperative learning (2nd. Ed.). Washington, D.C.: National Education Association.

Sleeter, C.E., & Grant, C.A. (1999). Making choices for multicultural education: Five approaches to race, class, and gender (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Merrill.

Townsend, B.L. (1994). Involving families of at risk and normally achieving children in social skill instruction. Preventing School Failure, 39(1), 31-36.

Townsend, B.L., Thomas, D.D., Witty, J.P., & Lee, R.S. (1996). Diversity and school restructuring: Creating partnerships in a world of difference. Teacher Education and Special Education, 19, 102-118.

U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (1993). 1990 elementary and secondary school civil rights survey: National summaries. Washington, DC: DBS Corporation.

U.S. Department of Education. (2002, March). U.S. Department of Education Community Update, 2-3.

Wu, S.C., Pink, W.T., Crain, R.L., & Moles, O. (1982). Student suspension: A critical reappraisal. The Urban Review, 14, 245-303.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download