A new report released by Max Eden at the conservative Manhattan Institute finds that reshaping school disciplinary policies in favor of progressive methods is unsubstantiated by evidence.
After the Trump administration walked back the Obama-era guidelines for these policies, as set out in the 2014 “Dear Colleague” letter, local school boards now have the power to revise their policies.
The Manhattan Institute report suggests that the “Dear Colleague” letter itself was based on a flawed set of claims, unsubstantiated by social science. Yet, many schools continue to use the two findings that adult bias, not differences in student behavior, drive racial disparities in school discipline and that exclusionary discipline (suspension and expulsion) can safely be replaced by “restorative” or “positive” methods.
Eden writes that “there is little basis for claims that ‘restorative’ or ‘positive’ approaches to student misbehavior work, and there is a growing cause for concern that the recent shift away from traditional discipline is doing more harm than good.”
Despite many policymakers and school board leaders assuming that suspensions harm students, there is lack of solid research on this topic. The report notes that two 2018 studies and two 2017 studies sought to isolate the impact of a suspension on a student by controlling for all other factors.
Considered together, these all suggest that some concern is warranted about the short-term academic effect of suspension, but “they fail to substantiate the concern that suspensions have dramatic negative effects.” Compare this evidence-based finding to the statement in the “Dear Colleague” letter that “suspensions don’t work — for schools, teachers or students.”
This finding, coupled with Eden’s other one that “restorative” or “positive” methods of discipline are largely missing the mark as well, suggest that schools are adopting policies without considering their consequences.
Restorative justice practices focus on student-mediated conflict resolution dialogues and healing circles, while positive discipline (called Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports, or PBIS) tries to preempt conflict and misbehavior by teaching behavioral expectations.
Surveys of teachers in 11 school districts implementing restorative justice, PBIS, or both reveal that only 23 percent believe restorative justice improves behavior. In Philadelphia, more than 80 percent of teachers said that suspensions are essential to send a message to parents about the seriousness of their child’s behavior, to ensure a safe school, and to encourage other students to follow the rules.
Eden suggests, among other takeaways, that these failed policies should be rolled back. If teachers think they have failed, there will be little buy-in for their future. Moreover, students should be the priority, not statistics. If student suspensions are required for a safer school, district leaders must fight through the bad press and criticism that will ensue from an increase in the percentage of students suspended.
If this policy makes their school safer and their students able to learn, it should be the priority, not the statistics. Now that the “Dear Colleague” letter is no longer actively imposing sanctions on schools for their disciplinary statistics, school leaders should feel free to pursue policies based on actual evidence that will benefit their entire student body.
Kate Hardiman is a contributor to Red Alert Politics. She is pursuing a master’s degree in education from Notre Dame University and teaches English and religion at a high school in Chicago.
