Abstract
Problem behavior disrupts classrooms across the United States, impacting student learning. Despite the adverse consequences, teachers often exclude disruptive students from school as a punitive and default response to problem behavior. Alternatives to exclusion are becoming increasingly popular in many school districts to improve behavior and keep students in the classroom. But these alternatives tend to group students without identifying and addressing their individualized needs. Nasaskyia R. Hicks reviews the existing literature on punitive school discipline, considers the benefits of alternative discipline, and strengthens the underexplored gaps in research by conceptualizing an approach teachers can use.
Keywords
Schools too often default to removing students with behavior problems from the classroom. Alternative approaches are needed.
Student behavior that disrupts learning and jeopardizes safety impacts many school districts nationwide and remains a perpetual concern of teachers (Mitchell, Kern, & Conroy, 2019). Classroom disruptions can range from minor to severe incidents, encompassing physical and verbal aggression, bullying, and other behavior that affects the teaching and learning environment (Kraft & Monti-Nussbaum, 2021). Teacher survey data from 2023 shows that problem behavior in all grade levels has increased substantially, with more than 70% of teachers reporting more disruptions than in 2019 (Prothero, 2023).
As concern grows over problem behavior, public schools need effective discipline practices. Identifying appropriate solutions requires us to understand the reason for underlying problem behavior and to identify the most effective disciplinary response.
Understanding the problem
Problem behavior brings challenges to the whole school environment (Ruttledge, 2022). The resulting classroom disruptions have negative impacts on student perpetrators, peer bystanders, and teachers (Barhight et al., 2017).
Students with problem behavior often experience a decline in academic performance due to internal and social factors, such as low self-esteem and a perceived lack of social support (Mishra, 2020; Walker, 2015). Other challenges to academic performance result from missed instruction. Problem behavior interrupts teachers’ lessons (Stevenson, VanLone, & Barber, 2020). In addition, students in disrupted classrooms lose instructional time, affecting their academic performance (Colvin, Reesman, & Glen, 2022).
Suspension, expulsion, and other forms of exclusionary discipline remove misbehaving students from the classroom so instruction can resume. However, frequent classroom removal puts students at risk of not progressing to the next grade (Gerlinger et al., 2021). One longitudinal study revealed that the risk persists beyond the year when the behavior occurred: The 8th-grade students in the study receiving exclusionary discipline were more likely to be retained in 9th grade than non-excluded students with similar infractions (Swanson, Erickson, & Ritter, 2021). Problem students spend less time in the classroom, receive less overall instruction, and miss critical information.
But keeping disruptive students in the classroom presents its own problems. Association with disruptive peers can increase the number of disruptions in the classroom. A two-year longitudinal study of 350 participants indicated a link between deviant peer associations, low self-esteem, and problem behavior (DuBois & Silverthorn, 2004). In addition, another study found that having more disruptive students in the same classroom affected academic achievement by decreasing peers’ time spent on homework (Zhao & Zhao, 2021).
The negative effects of exclusion
Typically, school officials decide how best to discipline students except in the case of severe, violent offenses that might be subject to district- or state-level policies. When students engage repeatedly in problem behaviors, school officials tend to respond with punitive consequences (Gottfredson & Gottfredson, 2001). Punitive school discipline involves strategies to reduce and deter problem behavior. These include, but are not limited to, exclusion — temporary or permanent classroom removal to punish students (Gerlinger et al., 2021).
Extensive research demonstrates both short-and long-term negative impacts of exclusion on students in all grade levels (Zinsser et al., 2022). First, exclusionary discipline is associated with poor academic outcomes for suspended students (Lacoe & Steinberg, 2019; Noltemeyer et al., 2015). Suspended students miss critical instruction, which academically and emotionally disengages them from learning (Pyne, 2019). These students are also at higher risk of academic failure, resulting in grade retention and dropout (Gerlinger et al., 2021).
In addition, exclusion makes students feel less connected to school (Graham et al., 2022; Marsh et al., 2019). Students may have difficulty maintaining social support and healthy relationships with teachers and peers (Henderson & Guy, 2017). Moreover, exclusionary discipline can affect students’ mental health and well-being. Data from a National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health Survey found an association between exclusion and higher levels of depressive symptoms (Eyllon et al., 2022).
Finally, inconsistency in how students from certain groups are disciplined have called into question the fairness of punitive discipline. National discipline trends reveal racial and ethnic disparities that have persisted for decades (Jacobsen et al., 2019). Black and Hispanic students are more likely to receive punitive discipline, and the discipline they receive tends to be harsher and involve longer suspensions than discipline for white students who committed similar offenses (Del Toro & Wang, 2021; Gregory et al., 2018; Hwang et al., 2022; Ispa-Landa, 2018). Further, Black students are subjected to higher rates of punitive discipline than Hispanic students (Skiba et al., 2011) and experience higher suspension rates than their white, Hispanic, Asian, and Native American counterparts (Gage et al., 2019). Schools with a higher percentage of Black students use punitive discipline at a higher rate than those with a lower population of Black students (Welch & Payne, 2010).
Disparities also exist between students who live (or have lived) in poverty and those who do not (Hwang et al., 2022; McFarland, 2017). Moreover, students in special education and those with disabilities have high rates of exclusionary discipline (Anderson, 2021).
Searching for solutions
Despite the potential downsides, school discipline is necessary for a safe and positive learning environment (Epstein et al., 2008; Oxley & Holden, 2021). Consequently, a debate persists over whether exclusionary discipline is an appropriate option to address problem behavior (McCombs et al., 2022). To complicate matters, variations in state policies have made it difficult to identify a universal and equitable discipline strategy that works in public schools.
How schools approach discipline has evolved over time. In response to the increase in youth violence and the political climate during the 1980s, school discipline in the U.S. shifted to a more punitive approach (Skiba & White, 2022). Growing concern over drugs and gang violence compounded by racial tensions led to stricter federal policies that criminalized student behavior, mostly targeting minority students in urban areas (Nolan, 2021).
The Guns-Free Schools Act of 1994 gave rise to mandatory consequences for certain school offenses, resulting in zero-tolerance policies (Woulfin & Sadler, 2023). Zero tolerance mandates predetermined responses to infractions, removing teachers’ and school officials’ discretion and making student exclusion more likely (Kyere, Joseph, & Wei, 2020). These inequitable policies unfairly target minority students, particularly Black students, at disproportionate rates (Wirtz, 2021).
While zero tolerance was enacted to improve school safety, research indicates that students feel less safe under this policy (Huang & Cornell, 2021). Further, zero tolerance is linked to adverse psychological effects stemming from alienation (White & Young, 2020). Zero tolerance also often places students into the school-to-prison pipeline. It treats problem behavior as a criminal matter, exponentially increasing juvenile arrests and pushing students toward a cycle of justice system involvement (Guerrero, 2021; Hemez, Brent, & Mowen, 2020; Hughes, Raines, & Malone, 2020).
As the debate over exclusion persists, effective discipline strategies are essential. Because so many school districts have overly relied on punitive discipline and exclusion, some states, such as California and North Carolina, have enacted legislation to limit exclusion (Cruz, Firestone, & Rodl, 2021; Rafa, 2018). In addition, there has been a recent push toward alternative discipline strategies that correct student behavior without exclusion (LiCalsi, Osher, & Bailey, 2021; Mergler, Vargas, & Caldwell, 2014). As many as 30 states and the District of Columbia promoted the use of alternative discipline strategies over exclusion in 2019 (Rafa, 2019). Discipline alternatives help students gain prosocial skills (Jean-Pierre & Parris, 2018); build healthy peer relationships (McNeil, Friedman, & Chavez, 2016); and improve classroom engagement (Evans & Lester, 2010).
Understanding alternative strategies
Alternative discipline strategies may include restorative practices, trauma-informed discipline, and other interventions (Rafa, 2018). Restorative discipline helps students learn to repair the harm inflicted and understand how their behavior impacts others (Kline, 2016). Trauma-informed discipline attempts to teach students to understand and manage their emotions using positive behavioral supports (Vincent et al., 2011), while trauma-informed training for teachers, school officials, and school resource officers helps adults gain insight into ways to support students who’ve experienced trauma (Forber-Pratt et al., 2021). Other interventions like schoolwide positive behavioral supports have been found effective in decreasing exclusion for students in elementary and secondary schools, although the benefits appear to be greater for white students than Black students, who remained vastly overrepresented in exclusion data (Vincent et al., 2011).
Alternative discipline models like these help school officials shift away from detrimental punitive and zero-tolerance policies, allowing students to remain in the classroom while developing the skills to improve decision making and behavior (Kyere, Joseph, & Wei, 2020). Research suggests that alternatives are more effective responses to problem behavior than exclusion (Wettach & Owen, 2015). A study of 2,303 elementary students in 18 schools found greater school connectedness when restorative discipline was administered versus exclusion (Konopljova, 2017). Further, alternative discipline lessens the likelihood of students entering the school-to-prison pipeline by preventing the overuse of exclusion (Mallett, 2016). Finally, alternative discipline strategies can provide parity in treatment for students who face exclusion at disproportionate rates, specifically Black students and students with disabilities (Owens & McLanahan, 2020; Zhan, Katsiyannis, & Herbst, 2004).
Identification, individualization, and integration
While multiple alternative discipline interventions exist for problem behavior, school districts often group students in alternative discipline interventions without determining the best approach for their individual issues. The root causes of problem behavior vary among students and require a more tailored approach. The one-size-fits-all approach does not work for all students.
As such, we need to conceptualize an approach to alternative discipline that ensures students receive the support they need to improve their behavior. Building on current alternative discipline research, we can think of alternative discipline as comprising three interdependent concepts — identification, individualization, and integration. Together, these concepts may help teachers and school officials reduce problem behavior, the overuse of exclusion, and the disparate treatment of minority students.
First, identification involves selecting students exhibiting persistent problem behavior. Disruptive students often interfere with the learning and teaching environment and face exclusion by default. Identifying these students enables teachers to determine the appropriate level and type of support they need. Teachers, principals, bus drivers, behavior specialists, counselors, social workers, and other school personnel work together to recognize early and pervasive signs of behavior and performance problems through interactions and observations with students.
Second, individualization is central to determining the best course of action for each student. Individualization allows teachers the autonomy to select multiple interventions based on need and potential benefits. Formally screening each student, taking into account their grade-level goals and disciplinary history, can help schools identify their specific needs. Ongoing monitoring will help determine the best setting and intervention for students. A group setting for disciplinary interventions may not be appropriate for some students, and individualization allows those students to receive one-on-one support if it’s more beneficial.
Lastly, once the students are identified and an individualized plan of action is tailored to fit their needs, alternative discipline interventions will need to be integrated into students’ school day to help them improve their problematic behavior and receive adequate support. Because teachers spend the most time with students in school, they are best positioned to determine the most suitable approach and plan of action. However, frontline personnel, such as behavior specialists, counselors, and social workers, also play a key role and will be vital to ensure a streamlined process.
Time (10-15 minutes) should be set aside in each homeroom each week for teacher-led or counselor-delivered lessons. The students requiring more support will receive one-on-one intervention from the teacher, behavior specialists, counselors, or social workers, who will work collaboratively to determine who should conduct the individualized session. For example, a student experiencing trauma may receive trauma-focused and restorative justice interventions. In this case, the lessons are integrated and adapted to the student’s needs.
Meeting students’ needs
School discipline is necessary to address persistent problem behavior, which challenges student safety and learning, but teachers often default to exclusion in response to problematic and disruptive behavior (Losen, 2015). Alternatives to exclusion, such as restorative practices, trauma-informed discipline, and other interventions can improve prosocial skills, reduce problem behavior, and keep students in the classroom (McNeill et al., 2016). However, teachers often group students in alternative discipline programs without tailoring the interventions to individual student needs or integrating multiple interventions, leaving a potential gap in support.
An approach to alternative discipline that positions teachers to develop the best plan of action can address student needs while reducing problem behavior. Future research exploring the internal, social, and external factors that contribute to problem behavior can aid in the development and refinement of additional alternative approaches that could prevent both classroom exclusion and the behaviors leading up to it.
An approach to alternative discipline that positions teachers to develop the best plan of action can address student needs while reducing problem behavior.