Running head: CALL TO ACT ON STUDENT SUSPENSIONS

Call to Act on Student Suspensions

Cathy Henkenberns
Central Michigan University

CALL TO ACT ON STUDENT SUSPENSIONS

Call to Act on Student Suspensions

School leaders and teachers are accountable to meet student achievement targets yearly as
a measure of student learning. It is vital therefore that students regularly attend school to engage
as learners. One important issue facing education is the impact of suspensions on students since a
student is not learning when not attending school. Also, unintended consequences surface when
suspensions do not address the root causes of student misbehavior. Furthermore, educators often
lack coordinated responses to teach appropriate coping strategies with a disengaged student. The
high rate of student suspensions is a public policy issue that highlights whether schools put
students at risk for academic failure due to missed instructional time (U. S. Department of
Education, 2015). In addition, federal law obligations require schools to administer discipline
without discrimination by race, color or national origin (U.S. Department of Education; U.S.
Department of Justice, 2014). Effects on disengaged students are reflected in lower achievement
scores and higher drop-out rates (Noguera, 2007).
The U.S. Departments of Education and Justice (2014) advised schools to create safe and
orderly educational environments so that all students can learn. Part one of this paper explores
the public education issue of student suspensions through a data review, and identifies potential
causes due to zero tolerance discipline policies, and a lack of teacher professional development
responding to student behaviors. Part two identifies several coalitions advocating for alternative
solutions to support disengaged students and increase time in school. Part three provides an
implementation plan for school policy change as a guide to improve climate and student
engagement in learning. Based on research, I offer restorative justice as one viable strategy to
decrease disciplinary suspensions and increase student engagement.

CALL TO ACT ON STUDENT SUSPENSIONS

Part One: Policy Research

Data Story
National data from the UCLA Civil Rights Project shared 3.3 million students missed
school in 2009 2010 due to suspensions. Within that number, African American students were
suspended three times more than any other group of students. More than 13% of students with a
disability were suspended (as cited in National School Boards Association, 2013). In addition,
many suspensions were assigned for a range of infractions: fighting, disrupting class, and other
minor violations (Skiba, 2014).
The United States Department of Education Office for Civil Rights released 2011 2012
data collection, showing African-American students were more than three times as likely as
white students to be suspended (Data Snapshot, School Discipline, 2014). Males received more
than two out of three suspensions. Black girls were suspended at rates of 12% which is higher
than girls of another ethnicity. Students with disabilities were twice as likely to receive out of
school suspensions than students without disabilities. The trends from national suspension data
show many students are losing days in class, leading to potential student disengagement and loss
of instructional time (National School Boards Association, 2013).
Michigan Department of Education (2013) data showed Michigan students lost 251,410
learning days due to suspensions or expulsions. Significant increases for disproportionality for
discipline show a 76% increase from 2009 - 2011 in the number of Michigan districts identified
for high suspension rates. The alarmingly high rates of student suspensions are often referred to
in the academic literature as the school to prison pipeline. Students excluded from school often
increase stress on family, face higher dropout rates, and eventually enter the juvenile
justice/court system (Skiba et al., 2006).

CALL TO ACT ON STUDENT SUSPENSIONS

Beyond the exclusionary practice of suspending students for minor misbehaviors, missing
school also puts students at risk for achievement. Attendance Works (2014) stated lost
instructional time exacerbates dropout rates and achievement gaps (p. 2). U. S. Department of
Education (2015) supported with research that students missing at least 10 percent of school days
in a year for any reason, excused or unexcused, becomes a primary cause of low academic
achievement and a powerful predictor of which students will eventually drop out of school.
Current school disciplinary practices have the potential to lower academic performance
among suspended students. Suspended students repeatedly lose opportunity to learn. Gregory,
Skiba, and Noguera (2010) stressed the importance of class time for students to be engaged in
academic learning to meet greater achievement outcomes. Gregory, et al. (2010) emphasized the
effect of students not in school, Suspended students may become less bonded to school, less
invested in school rules and coursework, and subsequently, less motivated to achieve academic
success (p. 60). In addition, Skiba (2014) offered no data exist to show that out of school
suspensions and expulsions reduce disruption or improve school climate (p. 30). Educational
research reinforced students need to be present in school to learn however current discipline
policies send more students out of the classroom without a noticeable change in behavior.
Further exploration of how schools arrived at this point is necessary to put the policy issue in
context.
Cause: Zero Tolerance Discipline Policies
Kang-Brown, Trone, Fratello, and Daftary Kapur (2013) explored zero tolerance
policys effect on schools. In the authors work with the Vera Institute of Justice, a national
advocacy group, they strive to e-engage truant youth in school as well as partner with state
leaders to improve discipline policy. The group reported that school discipline policies changes

CALL TO ACT ON STUDENT SUSPENSIONS

began in the late 1980s in response to rising rates of juvenile arrests for violent crimes. Congress
then passed the Gun-Free Schools Act in 1994, which required states to pass a law requiring all
local school districts to expel any student, for at least one year, who brought a weapon to school
(Kang-Brown et al., 2013). If a state did not implement the law, it would lose federal education
funds. Thus, by mid-1990s schools had enacted zero tolerance policies to improve overall school
safety. Skiba (2014) explained that the core of zero tolerance is a presumption that strong
enforcement can act as a deterrent to other potentially disruptive students (p. 28).
However, educators often assign suspensions for minor disruptive behaviors or truancy,
which does not serve, as much of a deterrent to violent offenses. Zero tolerance policy was
enacted to create a safer climate for students by removing disruptive and violent students. Data
indicators of school climate have shown the opposite effect. Skiba et al. (2006) reported schools
with higher rates of school suspension and expulsion actually have less satisfactory school
climate ratings. Instead of zero tolerance policy reducing disruptive behaviors, school
suspension, in general, is actually a predictor of higher future rates of misbehavior and
suspension among students (Skiba et al., 2006). Skiba (2014) further stated as district staff rely
on suspensions students eventually become immune to a certain level of punishment, requiring
ever longer and more severe penalties (p. 31).
Kang-Brown, et al. (2013) explained out-of-school suspension can severely disrupt a
students academic progress in ways that have lasting negative consequences (p. 5). For
example, students may be retained, dropout or face additional suspensions. As a result, the
Michigan Department of Education (MDE) adjusted school policy in 2012 to zero tolerance for
weapons only. MDE further advised schools to focus on teaching pro-social behaviors and
inclusion rather than punishment (Research Brief, June 2013). Yet many schools have not

CALL TO ACT ON STUDENT SUSPENSIONS

adapted their practice from punitive measures towards more inclusionary responses to student
misbehaviors.
Cause: Professional Development for Educators
Teachers require diverse skills to promote positive changes in a response to students
challenging behaviors. Educators must be careful that written school policies do not preserve the
punitive responses from the zero-tolerance era. Teachers can choose reactive or proactive
strategies when faced with student misbehaviors, which is often a choice developed through
experience. Therefore, the value of intentional teacher professional development focused on
providing a positive school culture for all students is imperative.
Further examining the disparity in suspension data for students of color, Gregory, Skiba,
and Noguera (2010) offered there is no single causal factor to explain that discrepancy. Fear
might play a role in higher discipline referrals. Skiba et al. (2006) revealed teachers who are
influenced by stereotypes of adolescent African-American males as threatening or dangerous
may react more quickly to relatively minor threats to authority that might be ignored for other
ethnic or racial groups (p. 59). Professional development programs must support teacher skills
in behavior management and cultural responsiveness to build stronger relationships with
students. Educators must also be aware of cultural bias when making behavior referrals.
Exclusion or removal should be used as a last measure.
Regarding professional development of alternative strategies from suspension, Noguera
(2007) provided direction that teachers must strive to make an intensive effort to understand the
roots of behavior problems, and then identify ways to reconnect students to learning. A review of
effective school programs that reduce disruption while helping students succeed can provide
insight to reducing suspensions and engaging more students in learning.

CALL TO ACT ON STUDENT SUSPENSIONS

Possible Suspension Alternatives

Osher, Bear, Sprague and Doyle (2010) provided schools with three alternative
approaches that are also supported in educational research: environmental approaches to
classroom management, positive behavioral supports (PBIS), and social emotional learning
(SEL). A well-managed classroom has norms, rules and structure guiding students with clear
expectations. Osher et al. (2010) emphasized the classroom management model is one of
cooperation, engagement, and motivation, and on students learning to be part of a dynamic
system, rather than on compliance (p. 49). For example, teacher plans how to involve students
as active participants in the learning process. Teacher education programs and school based
professional development sessions typically provide support to develop teachers skills to
manage a classroom. Nonetheless, if students lack classroom engagement, it is also unlikely that
school-wide discipline will improve it. A school leader must evaluate the skillset of staff to
manage a highly engaged learning environment because without it, the potential for disengaged
students increase.
Positive behavioral intervention supports (PBIS) teach rules and reward students for
following them (Osher et al., 2010; Rosa, et al., 2015). PBIS uses a three tier approach to teach
students better decision making for behavior. Skiba (2014) provided PBIS helps stop slight
misconducts from accelerating to crisis level. Student expectations are posted with clear
consequences and students receive frequent rewards for following the rules. The greater the
student's need, the more comprehensive the support. One drawback is that PBIS cannot stand
alone as a school program because it lacks a coordinated intervention component to teach socialemotional competencies (Osher et al., 2010).

CALL TO ACT ON STUDENT SUSPENSIONS

Social-emotional learning (SEL) develops student social and emotional capacities to

improve responsible decision making (Osher et al., 2010). Rosa et al. (2015) described SEL as
helping students learn to self-regulate and avoid negative behaviors that get them into trouble.
The goal of the program is to teach students self-awareness, respect for others and how to
manage conflict (Osher et al., 2010). SEL provides students with nonviolent strategy to resolve
relational conflict (Skiba, 2014). SEL can be delivered in an individual or group setting to
improve school climate. Osher et al. (2010) suggested that schools consider a multiple leveled
approach by aligning effective classroom management practices with other evidence-based
programs to improve school climate. Examining discipline data and monitoring the use of
evidence-based strategies, allows staff to assess school climate promoting student learning.
Impact of Suspensions on Learning and Job Salary
Suspensions can impact student achievement and influence dropout rates. National
Center for Educational Statistics reported the 2012 national dropout rate was 2.6 million students
and 6.9% in Michigan, among the highest in the nation. Chapman, Laird, Ifill, and KewalRamani
(2011) reported:
Dropouts make up disproportionately higher percentages of the nations institutionalized
population. In a comparison of those who drop out of high school and those who
complete high school, the average high school dropout costs the economy approximately
$250,000 over his or her lifetime in terms of lower tax contributions, higher reliance on
Medicaid and Medicare, higher rates of criminal activity, and higher reliance on
welfare. (p.1).
Reviewing the data for unemployment, dropout rates, and median wages indicate there is
still room for improvement for education to make a difference for students future lives. Skiba

CALL TO ACT ON STUDENT SUSPENSIONS

(2014) provided school discipline policies and suspensions may create unintended consequences
as risk factors for a range of negative academic and life outcomes (p. 28). The financial
implications and costs on society increase, when students do not earn a degree. School safety
policy must be dictated by doing what is best for the common good, one of our core democratic
values. The subsequent effect of high suspension rate on economics does put into question our
values of equity and fairness.
Reflection of Democratic Values Supporting Students
A schools response to students challenging behaviors is a reflection of equity for all
students. American Psychological Association found that suspension harms student academic
achievement and increases the chance of retention or becoming involved with the juvenile justice
system (as cited in National Association of School Boards, 2013). Current literature on education
reform points to the importance of creating positive learning environments for all children
(SaferSaner Schools, 2011; Dignity in Schools, 2014; U.S. Department of Education, 2014). A
movement is underway from reliance on punitive disciplinary measures perpetuating the school
to prison pipeline towards improving school climate. National Association of School Boards
(2013) calls for reducing suspension rates due to impact on students loss of instructional time.
The Dignity in Schools Campaign advocates for all students to benefit from a quality education
while treated with dignity.
To promote equity and fairness for all students, in July 2011 the U.S. Department of
Justice and U.S. Department of Education created the Supportive School Discipline Initiative, to
promote positive disciplinary options, keeping children in school. By joining federal, state and
local education stakeholders together, students benefit from policies that comply with our
nations civil rights laws as well as provide inclusionary responses to keep students in school.

CALL TO ACT ON STUDENT SUSPENSIONS

10

The project designated nearly $1.5 million to focus on research plus evaluation studies of schoolbased practices supporting positive and safe school climates.
In 2014, the U.S. Department of Education released Guiding Principles: A resource guide
to improving school climate and culture, to state and local school officials, outlining principles
and strategies to improve school climate and discipline practice. Action steps frame how schools
can improve discipline policy as well as reduce suspension disproportionality. Additionally,
federal resources are allocated to assist schools implementing these principles. Supportive
School Discipline Initiative sets a clear direction for schools to rethink discipline with
consideration of the long-term impact on students. Momentum is gaining for responsive
interventions to support students.
Discussion
Keeping students in school is foundational to equal opportunity to create whatever future
each student desires. Interventions using proactive and preventative approaches, address the
underlying cause of the behavior, reinforce positive behaviors, leading to increased student
engagement and achievement, and reductions in school suspensions and dropouts (Skiba et al.,
2006). Teacher training to increase understanding of root causes of student behavior, with
intentional support to teach positive interventions, should be the goal of all school leaders to
enable staff and students in sustaining a positive school culture.
Part Two: Major Actors and Coalitions
Education public policy strives to guarantee students have an equal opportunity to learn
while ensuring school safety. Some state laws attempt to create a safe school environment by
framing allowable suspension terms. Michigan law (2015) allows schools to suspend a student
for gross misdemeanor, verbal or physical assault, or persistent disobedience (Pupil accounting

CALL TO ACT ON STUDENT SUSPENSIONS

11

manual, p. 5-N-2). Without proper preventive measures though, schools struggle with managing
student behaviors and suspension decisions, to maintain safe schools.
The national suspension rates reflect change is necessary so that all students have equal
educational opportunity. As a call to respond to the alarming rates of student suspensions across
the country, schools must first ensure fair and equitable discipline policies supporting safe
learning environments (U.S. Department of Education, 2014). It is also vital for educators to
have a variety of tools providing support for students. Based on recommendations from both the
U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Department of Justice (2014), school districts must
emphasize positive interventions over student removal, provide appropriate consequences, use
evidence-based strategies to support student needs, and provide professional development for
educators.
The National School Board Association (2013) also made several recommendations
regarding student suspensions. Educators should eliminate students out of school time without a
compromise of student safety, while addressing behavior challenges. Educators should also work
with parents to implement educationally sound policy. In this section, contemporary political
actors are identified that provide alternative solutions to suspension. Schools planning a change
in policy should account for potential barriers and opportunities when implementing these
proactive measures for student safety. A safe school climate requires a balance of prevention and
intervention strategies with appropriate school discipline policy.
Advocates for New Solutions
Contemporary political and advocacy groups call for a preventive response supporting
students learning versus removal from school while also ensuring student safety. The
Advancement project (2016) is a national multi-racial civil rights organization seeking to achieve

CALL TO ACT ON STUDENT SUSPENSIONS

12

high impact policy change. The group advocates for an end to extreme disciplinary measures and
a movement towards inclusive and community building work to support students at school.
Educators can access via the website, policy reports from across the country and specific
examples of school programs making a positive impact on student behavior. SaferSaner Schools
(2011) is a national group providing schools with training on restorative justice practices. The
group reports improved community and social capital as students feel more connected to the
school community. SaferSaner schools provides a targeted scope and sequence of skills and
strategies for teachers to help students learn peaceful conflict resolution. Dignity in Schools is
another advocacy group that helps schools implement positive interventions as part of the
educational process supporting all students full development.
Educators possess no single recipe to meet the behavioral needs of every student. A
principal of a Detroit elementary school shared the root causes of most student misbehaviors is
anger often due to home circumstances. Students come to school struggling with how to have
appropriate interactions with peers and teachers. Consequently, school staff strive to build
positive relationships with students and support student needs on an individual basis. For
example, some disruptive students benefit from a daily check in with a teacher to set their day up
for success. This teacher also becomes the students go-to person if they need to talk during the
school day.
National Education Association (NEA, 2014) agreed that many educators lack the
resources to meet varied students developmental needs. Flannery (2014) offered insight on
NEAs support of restorative justice as a model to create future productive citizens. Flannery
(2014) noted that the NEA helps educators to use restorative justice or approaches that build

CALL TO ACT ON STUDENT SUSPENSIONS

13

healthy relationships and a sense of community (p. 3). NEA training support helps teachers
acquire relevant tools to engage more students in learning.
A preventive model of school discipline requires comprehensive planning of procedures
for teachers to be effective. Skiba (2014) stated appropriate strategies for handling misbehavior
and teaching appropriate behavior can help prevent minor misbehavior from accelerating into a
crisis (p. 32). Kang-Brown et al. (2013) shared that effective schools respond to behaviors on
a case by case basis in ways that suit the individuals circumstances and needs (p. 6). A
principal of a Lansing elementary school offers students with at risk behaviors, one to one
counseling with a behavior interventionist. The Lansing elementary staff examined school data to
identify deficits in student behaviors. Male African American students were receiving most of the
behavior referrals. In response, the staff were trained in restorative justice practice and are now
equipped to address student frustration and as a result, have fewer fights and suspensions in year
two of the program.
Buffalo New York public schools created a community plan, Developing Safe and
Supportive Schools (2013), with recommendations for student conduct and intervention supports
for all stakeholders to follow. The plan outlines for Buffalo public school students and adult
members of the school community how to engage in appropriate behavior to support student
success. Schools have a variety of prevention approaches to respond to student needs, such as,
conflict resolution, peer mediation, response to intervention (RtI) strategies, enrichment services,
and behavior intervention plans. The district further defined prevention and intervention
strategies through a three tier plan. The goal is prevention of a recurrence of misbehavior by
helping students learn from their mistakes. The district considers student suspension for level

CALL TO ACT ON STUDENT SUSPENSIONS

14

three or four behaviors that affect the safety of others or when supports have been put in place
but behavior is repetitive in nature.
U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Department of Justice (2014) resources provide a
framework to develop school climate. Guidelines include: develop school-wide and classroom
approaches grounded in research-based practices to create safe and inclusive environments,
reinforce positive behaviors, encourage students to take responsibility for choices to follow
school rules, and assist students development of social and emotional competencies to support
learning. Schools implement these ideas through intentional tiered supports led by staff as well as
involve students in maintaining a positive and inclusive learning environment. Specific evidencebased programs include positive behavior interventions and supports (PBIS), peer mediation,
cultural responsiveness, restorative justice, and social emotional learning, to name a few (U. S.
Department of Education, 2015; Dignity in Schools, 2011; Rosa, Keelan, and Krueger, 2015;
Schott Foundation, 2014; Skiba, 2014).
On the national and state levels, there are multiple advocacy groups that can support
educator training and implementation of programs. For example, the Resolution Services Center
of Central Michigan is a non-profit group teaching conflict resolution in schools. The programs
goal is to engage youth in peaceful conflict resolution practice through discussion using three
questions, what happened, who was affected and how, and how do we make things right.
Students learn to be accountable for their behavior as they reflect on the impact of their actions
on peers and teachers.
Establishing a coherent school level response to student misbehaviors, focused on doing
what is right for students, is vital to developing positive interventions. Educators who get to the
root of a students misbehavior, are better equipped to choose a suitable response supporting

CALL TO ACT ON STUDENT SUSPENSIONS

15

students need. A Detroit elementary school principal shared the importance of school policy to
suspend for unsafe behaviors, such as unacceptable physical contact or violence, to teach
students how to interact safely at school. Nevertheless, the school staff should always follow up
with mentoring or counseling to help the student learn better alternatives to manage frustration at
school.
Barrier: A Matter of School Policy
School discipline policy provides safer schools for learning to occur. However,
unintended consequences happen when a policy is applied unfairly based on a level of
infractions. Application of unfair disciplinary procedures for even minor infractions leads to
higher risk of academic failure and increases the probability of repeated suspensions in a
students future. Skiba (2014) explained that zero tolerance policy does not reduce disruptive
student behaviors but it does have an effect on student motivation. For instance, a Lansing
elementary principal reported her school suspended students for repeated patterns of minor
disruptive behavior and yet saw that suspensions did not deter those misbehaviors.
Examining school discipline policy is necessary to eliminate practices not appropriate for
students age or type of infraction (Rosa et al., 2015). Skiba (2014) supported the idea that
schools applying zero tolerance policy are actually implementing policy countering the research
on child development and neuroscience. Schools implementing a graduated system of
disciplinary action, coupled with a plan to increase student responsibility, have an opportunity to
create a positive school climate.
Opportunity to Improve Discipline Policy
Schools staying well-informed of U.S. Department of Education policy (2014) move
from punitive measures toward reasonable age appropriate discipline policies. One age

CALL TO ACT ON STUDENT SUSPENSIONS

16

appropriate measure is to ensure written discipline policies specifically and positively state high
expectations for student behavior, promote respect for others, and make clear that engaging in
harassment and violence, among other problem behaviors, is unacceptable (U.S. Dept. of
Education Appendix, 2014, p. 4). The policy outlines the necessity for schools to include a range
of measures for students choice to improve their behaviors. To illustrate, Buffalo New York
public schools (2013) provide educators a menu of research-based options to help in planning
intervention and prevention programs.
Barrier: Educators Ability to Respond and Funding
Discipline policy becomes an obstacle to student academic success when it limits school
leaders discretion to make decisions on an individual student basis (Rosa et al., 2015). For
example, suspending a student for truancy instead of allowing the principal discretion to manage
the individual students circumstances. The Supportive School Discipline Initiative (2011)
provided recommendations for changes to discipline policy while keeping students safe. One
recommendation is that schools develop or revise written discipline policies to define offense
levels and base disciplinary responses based on specific criteria. Teachers need training as a
result of discipline interventions moving towards preventive measures. One Detroit elementary
school principal reported her staff uses a combination of strategies that include behaving with
care towards students, positive behavior intervention strategies and mentoring students. Staff
receive regular training to implement this intervention plan.
Classroom management requires a teacher possess the skills to de-escalate conflict and
manage behaviors within the classroom. The Supportive School Discipline Initiative (2011)
provided teachers positive intervention options to keep students in school and improve school

CALL TO ACT ON STUDENT SUSPENSIONS

17

climate. Offering teachers with ongoing support and practice of new ideas, gives them
opportunity to improve skillset.
Funding is a barrier which states and districts must choose to overcome in providing
educators professional learning. All schools designate yearly funding to support teacher
professional development so choices must be intentionally planned to support teachers with
learning and practicing new behavior interventions. Additional funds are often available from the
federal and state levels for schools to access for professional development. One funding example
is the federal Safe and Supportive Schools Grant (S3), authorizing $155 million to states to
measure school safety and implement interventions to improve learning. The S3 Grants goal
strives to eliminate health and security barriers in low-achieving high schools plus increase the
opportunity for academic success for all students. Michigan received the largest grant award
($23.7 million over four years) of the 11 states funded thus far (Michigan Dept. of Education,
2015).
Opportunity to Promote Positive School Climate
The Supportive School Discipline Initiative (2011) created awareness of school
disciplinary practices pushing students out of school and losing learning time. All schools
adopting national guidance will improve educators response to student disruptive behaviors in
an efficient way taking into account the age and development level of each student. National
School Board Association (2013) suggested districts provide ongoing professional learning for
educators that emphasizes the importance of evidence-based positive school discipline,
behavior management, cultural relevancy and responsiveness, and social justice and equity (p.
5). National Crime Prevention Council (2016) recommended a school offer training in anger
management, stress relief, and related violence prevention skills to students and teachers.

CALL TO ACT ON STUDENT SUSPENSIONS

18

Establishing a coherent plan of prevention provides a school with opportunity to create and
sustain a highly engaged learning environment.
Discussion
To summarize, schools have many choices when planning prevention programs that help
keep students in school. There is often overlap in each strategy and very seldom does a school
choose just one option (Rosa et al., 2015). Part three focuses on implementation of restorative
justice to build a sense of school community plus teach students how to resolve a conflict by
restoring relationships (Dignity in Schools, 2011; Schott Foundation, 2014; SaferSaner Schools,
2011; Colorado Dept. of Education, 2015). Humans are born to learn, but we dont learn in
isolation. We learn based on positive relationships and interactions with peers and in
environments like schools that foster opportunities for students and staff to learn (Schott
Foundation, 2014, p. 1). Restorative justice is a proactive practice based on communication and
responsibility to sustain relationships.
Part Three: Policy report and Recommendation
School-wide prevention strategies improve classroom behaviors and establish a safe
school climate. Teaching pro-social skills, conflict management strategies, and mentoring
students, prepares a school to respond effectively to disruptive or violent student behaviors
(Skiba, 2014). At 22 participating Michigan schools, the Safe and Supportive Schools (S3) Grant
contributed to 65 percent of the schools increasing the graduation rate and 52 percent of the
schools reporting a decrease in bullying incidences (MDE, 2015). The MI data demonstrated that
educational systems can change school climate through preventative strategy. Schools
participating in the S3 program also provided continuous teacher training to build capacity and
sustain programs.

CALL TO ACT ON STUDENT SUSPENSIONS

19

This section outlines a course of action for a school to implement change towards a safer
and supportive climate, using restorative justice as one strategy, to engage students and as an
alternative to suspensions. A school can use the research support and strategies as a viable
execution plan. Leaders are also provided research-based guidance for successful rollout of
restorative justice policy.
Policy Recommendation: Restorative Justice
An evidence-based program, restorative justice has demonstrated success in schools
across the nation and state (SaferSaner Schools, 2011; U.S. Dept. of Education, 2014; Schott
Foundation, 2014; Michigan Dept. of Education, 2015). Restorative justice practice actively
engages a student in the process to repair harm rather than punish the offender. The process
builds upon students social/emotional skills to create healthy relationships among students and
teachers. Restorative practices include reducing and improving harmful student behaviors,
resolving conflict and holding students accountable for actions (SaferSaner Schools, 2011;
Schott Foundation, 2014; Rosa et al., 2015). Specific activities include class community or peer
to peer conferences, classroom circle process, preventive resolution programs and community
service, among other strategies (SaferSaner Schools, 2011; Schott Foundation, 2014).
Restorative practices work best when they are implemented school-wide to promote a sense of
belonging and connectedness to the school community (Rosa et al., 2015).
The Schott Foundation (2014) illustrated an example of the difference using restorative
justice with a student, versus school removal. The story portrays varied school responses to a
vignette about Carlos, a student late to class. In a zero tolerance school, Carlos would be
reprimanded by his teacher for being late, causing Carlos further frustration. At lunch, he gets
into a minor scuffle with a peer and is then suspended from school for fighting (Schott

CALL TO ACT ON STUDENT SUSPENSIONS

20

Foundation, 2014). However, in a restorative justice school, Carlos is greeted by his teacher who
also checks in with him after class. Hearing the cause of Carlos tardiness, the teacher offers
support. When Carlos and a peer get into the minor scuffle at lunch, they meet with a staff
mediator who helps the students talk through and resolve the issue. Both students offer to clean
the cafeteria after school as a strategy to repair harm (Schott Foundation, 2014). In this
illustration, students learn accountability for behavior, have opportunity to communicate
problems, and demonstrate responsibility for the common good of the school community. The
successful execution to create this positive and preventative approach to student misbehaviors,
requires training for teachers.
Implementing Restorative Justice as a Policy
Effective implementation of restorative justice includes training teachers in strategies to
prevent power struggles and conflicts. Increasing teachers knowledge of developmentally
appropriate student responses will provide insight to trying new ways to support misbehaviors
(Rosa et al., 2014). SaferSaner Schools (2011), Michigan Department of Education (2015) and
Schott Foundation (2014) offered approaches for schools to replicate for an effective restorative
justice plan. To begin, establish a team of educators, parents and community members to assess
need and provide input on policy development. Policy change to restorative justice takes time so
a school should be thoughtful when executing the plan (Schott Foundation, 2014).
Systematic Execution
Starting with why is important for school policy change so educators and parents must
work together to develop and implement new practices. It is valuable to also connect with other
state and national groups working on school discipline reform. Data examination often tells a
story that provides impetus for the change. A school collects data at the start and throughout the

CALL TO ACT ON STUDENT SUSPENSIONS

21

process, to determine needs, set goals, and monitor the plan. Teachers must be provided with
training and ongoing support to sustain the program. Finally, the school monitors the programs
operation through collecting feedback and adjusts practice as necessary. Celebrating small
successes with students and staff is a critical piece to maintain buy-in to the policy and build
resolve to sustain the culture changes. For example, if discipline referrals drop, share the
information with staff to show programs impact on students.
Examining Implementation through Policy Instruments
In order to adopt a restorative justice policy, schools should consider using the following
policy instruments (Fowler, 2013): Lowis Redistributive policy (1964), and McDonnell and
Elmores Capacity building policy (1987). Public policy frameworks provide education leaders
with a method to review policy design, relationships, and to predict successful reform
(McDonnell and Elmore, 1987).
Lowis Instrument Policy: Redistributive
This type of recommended policy has been classified as Lowis (1964) redistributive
policy because the policy alters the environment, shifts power or resources from one group to
another (Fowler, 2013). When considering adjustments to school policy, leaders clarify the
political environment to identify alliances and potential conflicts. Significant policy changes
generate conflict when perceived as deviations in values from current practice. Fowler (2013)
offered when creating change, that leaders recognize mindset matters and people often like to
keep the status quo. When implementing policy change, leaders might consider forming a
committee to study the issue, conduct research and offer an implementation plan. Gaining
supporters over time would be important when adopting restorative justice, if it involves a big
change in schools culture.

CALL TO ACT ON STUDENT SUSPENSIONS

22

McDonnell and Elmore Instrument Policy: Capacity building

McDonnell and Elmores (1987) capacity building policy provides insight for successful
change towards restorative justice. A policy reforms success or lack thereof depends on the
capacity of the staff to carry it out. The actual realization of the reform comes as a result of staff
and leadership seeking the same goal and student outcomes. Fowler (2013) indicated investment
in capacity building represents a major, permanent change in the functional ability of an
individual or organization (p. 226). Sustainability depends on teachers professional learning to
support students with conflict resolution and coping strategies to overcome challenges. A
teachers desire to change the world and to influence the future therefore, can create a belief to
try new practice. Persuasion is a powerful motivator when teachers view the adjustment aligning
with their values.
Conclusion
Students have a right to public education in our country. Schools have a responsibility to
provide a safe and equitable learning environment for all pupils. As educators, we can no longer
allow minor disruptions of student behaviors, to force students out of our classrooms.
Suspensions are not the answer when we care about the future of our students and communities.
Restorative justice practices offer pupils and teachers a viable strategy to support safe and
welcoming schools of learning. A school following the frameworks provided will create a viable
plan to modify school culture embracing restorative justice as good for students. We owe our
students, our future citizens, with an education learning not only academics, but also skills to be
responsible and respectful community members. Schools choosing restorative justice as a
strategy for building positive climate, benefit by building trust and community among all
members.

CALL TO ACT ON STUDENT SUSPENSIONS

23

References
Advancement Project. (2016). Ending the schoolhouse to jailhouse track. Retrieved from
http://safequalityschools.org/
Attendance Works. (2014). Absences add up: How school attendance influences school success.
Retrieved from http://www.attendanceworks.org/wordpress/wpcontent/uploads/2014/09/Absenses-Add-Up_090114-1-1.pdf
Buffalo Public Schools. (2013). Developing safe and supportive schools: Standards for
community wide conduct and intervention supports. Buffalo, NY. Retrieved from
http://b.3cdn.net/advancement/0e952a6918193c94a4_pqm6i5axu.pdf
Chapman, C., Laird, J., Ifill, N., & KewalRamani, A. (2011). Trends in high school dropout and
completion rates in the United States: 1972-2009. Compendium Report. NCES 2012006. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Detroit Elementary Principal, personal communication, February 15, 2016.
Dignity in Schools Campaign. (2014). Michigan pushout fact sheet. Retrieved from
http://www.dignityinschools.org/document/michigan-pushout-fact-sheet
Flannery, M. E. (2014, March 24). NEA and partners promote restorative justice in schools.
[Web log comment]. Retrieved from http://neatoday.org/2014/03/24/nea-and-partnerspromote-restorative-justice-in-schools/
Fowler, F. C. (2013). Policy studies for educational leaders (4th ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Gregory, A., Skiba, R. J., & Noguera, P. A. (2010). The Achievement gap and the discipline gap
two sides of the same coin. Educational Researcher, 39(1), 59-68.

CALL TO ACT ON STUDENT SUSPENSIONS

24

Kang-Brown, J., Trone, J., Fratello, J., & Daftary-Kapur, T. (2013). A generation later: what
weve learned about zero tolerance in schools. New York (NY): Vera Institute of Justice.
Lansing Elementary Principal, personal communication, February 16, 2016.
McDonnell, L. M., & Elmore, R. F. (1987). Alternative policy instruments (No. JNE-03). Rand
Corp. Santa Monica, CA.
Michigan Department of Education. (2013). Message #124: Discipline and the achievement gap.
Retrieved from http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/Research_Brief_4__Discipline_416596_7.pdf
Michigan Department of Education. (2015). Think. respect. safe and supportive schools.
Lansing, MI. Retrieved from
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/ADAFINAL_MDE_Grant_Overview_final_co
mpressed_502323_7.pdf
Michigan Department of Education. (2015). Pupil Accounting Manual. Lansing, MI. Retrieved
from https://www.michigan.gov/documents/5N-SuspendExpulsion_41714_7.pdf
National School Boards Association. (2013). Addressing the out-of-school suspension crisis: A
policy guide for school board members. Retrieved from
https://www.nsba.org/sites/default/files/0413NSBA-Out-Of-School-Suspension-SchoolBoard-Policy-Guide.pdf
National Crime Prevention Council (2016). A dozen things principals can do to stop school
violence. Washington DC: Retrieved from
http://www.ncpc.org/resources/files/pdf/school-safety/principals12.pdf
Noguera, P. A. (2007). How listening to students can help schools to improve. Theory into
practice, 46(3), 205-211.

CALL TO ACT ON STUDENT SUSPENSIONS

25

Osher, D., Bear, G. G., Sprague, J. R., & Doyle, W. (2010). How can we improve school
discipline? Educational Researcher, 39(1), 48-58.
Resolution Services Center of Central Michigan (2012). What is restorative justice. [Web log
comment]. Retrieved from: http://www.resolutionservicescenter.org/restorative-justice/
Rosa, J., Keelan, K., & Krueger, J. (2015). Alternatives to zero tolerance: Best practice
summary. Denver, CO: Colorado department of education.
SaferSaner Schools (2011). Whole-school change through restorative practices. International
Institute for Restorative Justices. Retrieved from http://www.iirp.edu/pdf/WSCOverview.pdf
Schott Foundation. (2014). Restorative Practices: Fostering healthy relationships and promoting
positive discipline in schools: A guide for educators. Retrieved from
http://schottfoundation.org/sites/default/files/restorative-practices-guide.pdf
Skiba, R., Reynolds, C. R., Graham, S., Sheras, P., Conoley, J. C., Garcia-Vazquez, E., ... &
Edmiston, A. (2006). Are zero tolerance policies effective in the schools? An evidentiary
review and recommendations an official report of the APA.
Skiba, R. J. (2014). The failure of zero tolerance. Journal of Emotional and behavioral
problems: reclaiming children and youth, 22(4), 27 -33.
United States Department of Education. (2014). Civil rights data collection: Data snapshot:
School discipline. Washington DC: U. S. Department of Education. (Research brief
No.1).
United States Department of Education. United States Department of Justice. (2014). Dear
colleague letter. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201401-title-vi.html

CALL TO ACT ON STUDENT SUSPENSIONS

26

United States Department of Education. (2014). Guiding principles: A resource guide to

improving school climate and culture. Washington DC: U. S. Department of Education.
Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/school-discipline/guidingprinciples.pdf
United States Department of Justice. United States Department of Education. (2015). Every
student every day: A Community toolkit to address and eliminate chronic absenteeism.
Washington DC: U. S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/chronicabsenteeism/index.html
US Department of Education. (2015). Positive behavioral interventions and supports
implementation blueprint: Part 2 self-assessment & action planning. Washington, DC:
U. S. Department of Education. Retrieved from www.pbis.org/blueprint/implementationblueprint