Disciplinary Procedures
There are a variety of disciplinary procedures that are used across the United States to address disciplinary problems. One aim of these disciplinary procedures is to maintain school safety. Details regarding a few common punitive and positive procedures are highlighted below.
Punitive Practices
In general, punitive practices are not recommended as they tend to reduce perceptions of safety and connectedness among students and the perpetuation of the school-to-prison pipeline (NASP, 2018).
Zero Tolerance Policies (ZTP)
ZTP is characterized by the use of more severe penalties, primarily suspension and expulsion, for both major and minor violations of the school disciplinary code, in order to send a message that certain behaviors will not be tolerated (Skiba, 2010).
Pros and Cons of ZTP
|
Proponents |
Opponents |
|
● Belief that strict policies keep schools safe. ● Strict rules leave no room for subjectivity or favoritism during disciplinary practices. |
● No evidence that ZTP improves school safety or climate. ● May encourage school drop-out, negatively impact academic,s & increase problem behavior. ● May prevent students from attending school. ● Disproportionately impacts minority students. |
(NASP, 2018)
Positive Practices
Positive approaches to discipline teach and reinforce positive behaviors, are clear and equitably applied to all students; employ culturally competent practices, safeguard the well-being of all students and staff, keep students in school and out of the juvenile justice system, and incorporate family involvement (NASP, 2018).
Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS)
The broad purpose of PBIS is to improve the effectiveness, efficiency and equity of schools. PBIS improves social, emotional and academic outcomes for all students, including students with disabilities and students from underrepresented groups (U.S. Department of Education, 2019).
Pros and Cons of PBIS
|
Proponents |
Opponents |
|
● Significantly reduces student suspensions, office discipline referrals, tardiness, unexcused absences, bullying, and feelings of rejection among students. ● Students feel discipline is fair. ● More proportional discipline practices for all racial/ethnic backgrounds. ● PBIS can be implemented prek-12. |
● May encourage extrinsic motivation with use of reward system associated with universal expectations. ● Raises questions as to whether students are being controlled and conditioned versus encouraged to grow in a holistic manner. |
(Gomez, 2017; NASP, 2018)
Restorative Justice (RJ)
RJ involves building and restoring relationships through the implementation of various processes (e.g. conferences, peer mediation, healing circles, etc.) while teaching skills (e.g. communication, empathy, assertiveness, etc.) (Hopkins, 2002).
Pros and Cons of RJ
|
Proponents |
Opponents |
|
● Teaches students new conflict resolution and relationship building skills. ● To be effective, RJ should be embedded within school culture. ● Some studies report improved school climate, connectedness, parent engagement, and academics. ● May reduce rates of office referrals and suspensions. |
● RJ is less likely to be implemented in schools with larger percentages of Black, Hispanic, and economically disadvantaged students. ● Concern of program timeliness (training & implementation). ● Some argue there is limited research on the evaluation of RJ. |
(Fronius et al., 2016; González, 2012; Mirsky, 2007; Mirsky & Watchel, 2007; Hopkins, 2002; NASP, 2018)
Additional Resources
Additional positive practices include focusing on social-emotional learning, creating a positive school climate, and ensuring fair practices for all students. The following are supplementary school disciplinary practice resources:
● http://restorativejustice.org/#sthash.A3tZSKqO.dpbs
● https://www.michigan.gov/mde/0,4615,7-140-74638_72831---,00.html
References
Fronius, T., Persson, H., Guckenburg, S., Hurley, N., & Petrosino, A. (2016). Restorative justice
in US schools: A research review. San Francisco, CA: WestEd Justice and Prevention Training Center.
Gomez, F. (2017). PBIS: Moving Beyond a Focus on Behavior to Relationships.
González, T. (2012). Keeping kids in schools: Restorative justice, punitive discipline, and the
school to prison pipeline. Journal of Law and Education, 41(2), 281–335.
Hopkins, B. (2002). Restorative justice in schools. Support for Learning, 17(3), 144-149.
Mirsky, L. (2007). Safer saner schools: Transforming school cultures with restorative practices.
Mirsky, L., & Wachtel, T. (2007). The worst school I’ve ever been to: Empirical evaluations of a
restorative school and treatment milieu.
National Association of School Psychologists. (2018). Effective school discipline policies and
practices: Supporting student learning [Research summary]. Bethesda, MD: Author.
Skiba, R. (2010). Zero Tolerance and Alternative Discipline Strategies. National Association of
School Psychologists.
U.S. Department of Education. (2019). Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports: OSEP
Technical Assistance Center.