when can get my assignment back?

f e a t u r e

WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT SCHOOL DISCIPLINE REFORM?

ASSESSING THE ALTERNATIVES TO SUSPENSIONS AND EXPULSIONS

THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S OFFICE for Civil Rights an n o u n ced this spring th at the n u m b er of suspensions and expulsions in the natio n ’s public schools had dropped 20 percent between 2012 and 2014.

The news was welcomed by those who oppose the frequent use o f suspensions and expulsions, known as exclusionary discipline. In recent years, many policymakers and educators have called for the adoption of alternative disciplinary strate­ gies that allow students to stay in school and not miss valuable learning time. Advocates for discipline reform contend that suspensions are meted out in a biased way, because minority students and those with disabilities receive a disproportionate share of them. Some also assert that reducing suspensions would improve school climate for all students.

Government leaders have taken steps to encourage school discipline reform. The Obama administration has embarked on several initiatives to encourage schools to move away from suspensions and toward alternative strategies. In 2011, the Departm ent o f Education (DOE) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) launched the Supportive School Discipline Initiative to coordinate federal efforts in this area. In January 2014, the DOE released a resource package with a variety of informational materials designed to support state and local efforts to improve school climate and discipline. The package

included a “Dear Colleague” letter, issued jointly by DOE and DOJ, warning against intentional racial discrimination but also stating that schools unlawfully discriminate even “if a policy is neutral on its face—meaning that the policy itself does not mention race—and is administered in an evenhanded m anner but has a disparate impact, i.e., a disproportionate and unjustified effect on students o f a particular race.”

Discipline reform efforts are also underw ay at the state an d school-district levels. As of M ay 2015, 22 states and the D istrict o f Columbia had revised their laws in order to require or encourage schools to: limit the use o f exclusion­ ary discipline practices; im plem ent supportive (that is, nonpunitive) discipline strategies th at rely on behavioral interventions; and provide support services such as coun­ seling, dropout prevention, and guidance services for at- risk students. A nd as o f the 2015-16 school year, 23 o f the 100 largest school districts nationw ide had im plem ented policy reform s requiring nonpunitive discipline strategies an d /o r limits to the use o f suspensions. In an April 2014 survey o f 500 district superintendents conducted by the School Superintendents Association (AASA), 84 percent of respondents reported that their districts had updated their code o f conduct w ithin the previous three years.

W hat evidence supports the call for discipline reform?

by MATTHEW P. STEINBERG and JOHANNA LACOE

4 4 EDUCATION NEXT / W I N T E R 2 0 1 7 e d u c a tio n n e x t.o rg

P H

O T

O G

R A

P H

/ G

E T

T Y

I M

A G

E S

; N

IC H

O LA

S A

LA N

C O

P E

educationnext.org W I N T E R 2 0 1 7 / ED UCA TIO N NEXT 4 5

TWENTY-THREE OF THE NATION'S 100 LARGEST SCHOOL DISTRICTS

HAVE IMPLEMENTED POLICY REFORMS requiring nonpunitive

discipline strategies, lim its on suspensions, or both.

How might alternative strategies affect students and schools? In this article, we describe the critiques of exclusionary discipline and then examine the research base on which discipline policy reform rests. We also describe the alternative approaches that are gaining traction in America’s schools and present the evidence on their efficacy. Throughout, we consider what we know (and don’t yet know) about the effect of reducing suspensions on a variety of important outcomes, such as school safety, school climate, and student achievement.

In general, we find that the evidence for critiques of exclusionary discipline and in support of alternative

strategies is relatively thin. In part, this is because many discipline reforms at the state and local levels have only been implemented in the last few years. While disparities in school discipline by race and disability status have been well docum ented, the evidence is inconclusive as to whether or not these disparate prac­ tices involve racial bias and discrimination. Further, the evidence on alternative strategies is mainly cor­ relational, suggesting that more research is necessary to uncover how alternative approaches to suspensions affect school safety and student outcomes.

Addressing such questions is vitally important,

Declines in Exclusionary Discipline (Figure 1) The percentages o f students with at least one out-of-school suspension and with an expulsion declined modestly

fro m 2006 to 2011, the most recent year fo r which comprehensive data are available.

NOTE: Numbers are for students who are not classified as disabled under IDEA or Section 504. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights

46 EDUCATI ON NEXT / W I N T E R 2 0 1 7 educationnext.org

f e a t u r e S C H O O L D IS C IP L IN E STEINBERG & LACOE

because a safe school climate is essential for student success. A recent National Center for Education Statistics report documented downward trends in suspensions, student vic­ timization, and reports of bullying. Since 2006, out-of-school suspensions have declined, with more recent declines in expulsions (see Figure 1). Still, m ore than one-third o f teachers in 2012 reported that student behavior problems and tardiness interfered with their teaching. Regardless of the kind o f discipline districts choose to employ, policymakers and school leaders m ust recognize that school disorder and violence have adverse effects on all stu­ dents. For example, students who were exposed to Hurricane Katrina evacuees with significant behavior problems experienced short-term increases in school absences and discipline problems themselves. Recent evidence also shows that exposure to disruptive peers during elementary school worsens student achieve­ m ent and later life outcomes, including high school achievement, college enrollment, and earnings (see “D om ino Effect,” research, Summer 2009). These findings highlight the importance of closely monitoring the effects of discipline reform on all students.

Critiques of Exclusionary Discipline

Disproportionate suspension rates. There is little doubt that students of color and those with disabilities face exclusionary discipline much more often than their peers do. Racial disparities in suspensions begin as early as preschool, with black children comprising 18 percent of enrollment in preschools but 48 percent of preschool children experiencing one or m ore suspensions, according to the federal Office for Civil Rights. These dispari­ ties extend through primary, middle, and high school, where black students comprise 16 per­ cent of all enrolled students but 34 percent of students suspended once (and 43 percent of students receiving multiple out-of-school suspensions) (see Figure 2). Furthermore, gaps in suspension rates between black students and white students have grown over time, doubling between 1989 and 2010. Youth enrolled in spe­ cial education also experience higher rates of suspension: in 2011, students with disabilities

Disproportionate Discipline (Figure 2)

( 2 a ) D uring th e 2011-12 school year, black s tu d e n ts w ere m ore th a n fo u r tim e s as lik e ly as w h ite s tu d e n ts to re ceive m u ltip le o u t-o f-s c h o o l suspensions.

In-school One o u t-o f-s c h o o l M u ltip le o u t-o f-s c h o o l suspension suspension suspensions

( 2 b ) As a re s u lt, th o u g h black ch ild re n co m p rise d ju s t 16 p e rc e n t o f s tu d e n ts e n ro lle d in grades K-12, th e y m ade up 4 3 p e rc e n t o f s tu d e n ts who received m u ltip le o u t-o f-s c h o o l suspensions d uring th e 2011-12 school year.

E n ro llm e n t In-school One M u ltip le E xpulsion suspension o u t-o f-s c h o o l o u t-o f-s c h o o l

suspension suspensions

■ W h ite ■ B la ck H is p a n ic /L a tin o 31 O th e r

NOTES: " O t h e r " s tu d e n ts in c lu d e A s ia n s , A m e ric a n In d ia n s , P a c ific Is la n d e rs , an d s tu d e n ts w it h tw o o r m o re ra c e s .

S O U R C E : U.S. D e p a r tm e n t o f E d u c a tio n , O ffice fo r C ivil R ights

e d u c a t i o n n e x t . o r g W I N T E R 2 0 1 7 / EDUCATION NEXT

were suspended at twice the rate o f nondisabled students. W hat accounts for these disparities? Do they stem

from discrimination and racial bias? The possibility of such bias is one justification for the Office of Civil Rights’ involvement in the issue o f school discipline. However, it could be that special-education and minority students are disciplined more often because they commit more infrac­ tions than their peers. If that is so, the greater frequency of violations among m inority students could be caused by factors outside of the school’s purview, such as more exposure to poverty, crime, and life traum a resulting from residential and economic inequality. Many disabled students also face heightened life stresses that could con­ tribute to misbehavior.

Some evidence does suggest that students with dis­ abilities and racial minorities tend to be punished more severely than their peers for the same offenses. In 2011, Russell Skiba and colleagues analyzed school-level data on disciplinary referrals in 364 schools and found that black and H ispanic students were m ore likely than white students to receive suspensions o r expulsions for “m inor misbehavior,” such as inappropriate verbal language, m inor physical contact, disruption, and defi­ ance. Unfortunately, the study was unable to control for students’ prior infractions in school, a factor that may influence the severity o f the response to a given offense. In a separate study, Russell Skiba and Natasha Williams further revealed that black students in the same schools or districts were not engaged in levels of disruptive behavior

o f this aggregate difference; that is, when the researchers looked only at students attending the same school, the racial differences became much more modest, with black students receiving only about 0.07 m ore days o f punish­ m ent than whites. W ithin schools, the authors also found a statistically significant, though modest, difference in the length o f punishm ent for special-education students, approximately 0.10 days m ore per suspension.

O ne recent study using nationally representative longitudinal survey data considered the role of prior problem behavior in disparate suspension rates. W hen the study authors controlled for whether these students exhibited prior behavioral problem s (in kindergarten, 1st, and 3rd grades), they found that the racial gap in 8th-grade suspension rates disappeared, leading them to conclude that the disproportionate use of suspensions was probably not the result o f racial bias. This conclu­ sion is subject to question, however, since the authors compared results from statistical models that relied on different underlying samples, owing to student attrition within the study. Further, the study was unable to address any biases implicit in the measure o f prior behavioral problems; nor did it consider that a child might be labeled as a “troublem aker” early on, which m ight predispose authorities to mete out harsher consequences.

One of us (Steinberg) has shown that schools in Chicago serving students from communities with lower poverty and crime rates tend to be safer schools, especially where there are social resources available in the community.

WHILE DISPARITIES IN SCHOOL DISCIPLINE BY RACE AND DISABILITY

s t a t u s h a v e b e e n w e l l d o c u m e n t e d , the evidence is

inconclusive as to w he th er or not these disparate

practices involve racial bias and discrim ination.

that would warrant higher rates of exclusionary discipline than white peers.

Recent evidence from Arkansas confirms that black students attending public schools there are punished m ore harshly than their white peers, but also suggests that most of the difference is attributable to the schools that students attend. Researchers found that, over the course of three school years, black students received, on average, 0.5 m ore days of punishm ent (including in ­ school and out-of-school suspension and expulsion days), even when controlling for special-education status and comparing students at the same grade level. However, they showed that cross-school differences explained most

Furthermore, schools serving students from neighbor­ hoods with the highest crime rates and the fewest social resources predominantly serve African American students; thus, most of the schools in Chicago where students and teachers report the lowest levels o f safety serve a m ajor­ ity African American student population. These findings suggest the need for increased attention to how neighbor­ hood disadvantage influences student conduct, and for policymakers and school leaders to consider the kinds of school resources that could support students facing adverse home and com m unity circumstances.

Overuse o f suspensions fo r minor offenses. Critics also say that exclusionary discipline is used too frequently

48 EDUCATION NEXT / W I N T E R 2 0 1 7 e d u c a t i o n n e x t . o r g

f e a t u r e S C H O O L D IS C IP L IN E S T E IN B E R G & L A C O E

in response to lower-level, nonviolent stu­ dent behavior. For example, nearly half of all suspensions issued in California public schools during the 2011 -12 school year were for “willful defiance,” a category o f student misconduct that includes refusing to remove a hat or tu rn off a cell phone, or school u n i­ form violations. Nationwide, insubordina­ tion has accounted for an increasing share of all serious disciplinary actions—that is, suspensions for five or more days, transfers to specialized schools, and expulsion—from 22 percent during the 1999-2000 school year to 43 percent in 2007-08 (see Figure 3). Over the same period, the proportion of serious disciplinary actions for m ore serious student m isconduct (such as possession o f alcohol, drugs, o r a weapon) declined from 50 to 22 percent.

Negative effects on school climate. Advo­ cates o f discipline reform contend that exclusionary discipline m ay have adverse consequences for school climate. While zero- tolerance policies aim to im prove school climate and safety by removing disruptive stu­ dents, research evidence finds that teachers and students in schools with high suspension rates report feeling less safe than their counterparts in schools serving similar students that have lower suspension rates. Schools with higher suspension rates also have greater teacher attri­ tion and turnover. According to the American Psychological Association’s Zero Tolerance Task Force, there is no hard evidence that exclusionary policies reduce school violence.

While the evidence does suggest that school climate is worse when exclusionary discipline practices are more widespread, this evidence is not causal. We don’t know whether the use o f exclusionary discipline causes school climates to deteriorate, or if administrators respond to unruly climates by clamping down on school discipline. Therefore, policymakers and practitioners m ust remain cautious about the potential effects that newly im ple­ m ented reforms may have on school climate and student safety. And even if schools reduce their use of exclusionary practices, it doesn’t necessarily follow that they will cease to mete out these punishments disproportionately by race.

Negative effects on student outcomes. Critics also con­ tend that exclusionary discipline can trigger a downward spiral in students’ lives inside and outside of school, leading to the so-called school-to-prison pipeline. Unfortunately, research on the causal effect of suspensions on academic

Escalating Response to Insubordination (Figure 3) Nationwide, insubordination has accounted fo r an increasing share o f all serious disciplinary action— that is, suspension fo r fiv e or more days, transfers to specialized schools, and expulsion—fro m 22 percent in 2000 to 43 percent in 2008.

School d is cip lin ary a ctio n s

NOTES: Data are presented by calendar year in which the school year ends. "Other" offenses include distribution, possession, or use of alco­ hol or illegal drugs, or use or possession of a firearm, explosive device, or other weapon.

SOURCE: Authors’ calculations from U.S. Department of Education, Indicators of Crime and Safety, 2012

achievement and other student outcom es is limited. Students who are removed from school do tend to have lower achievement on standardized exams; are less likely to pass state assessments; and are more likely to repeat a grade, drop out of school, and become involved in the juvenile justice system. The AASA’s 2014 survey found that 92 percent of superintendents believe that out-of­ school suspensions are associated with negative student outcomes, including lost instructional time and increased disengagement, absenteeism, truancy, and dropout rates. These correlations, however, do not tell us whether sus­ pended students would have experienced these adverse outcomes even if they hadn’t received suspensions.

Alternative Practices W hat are the alternative approaches to exclusionary

discipline that are currently being implemented? And what is the evidence that they “work”—that is, do they

ed uc a ti o n n e xt .o rg W I N T E R 2 0 1 7 / EDUCATI ON NEXT 49

reduce suspensions and expulsions without leading to increased disorder or violence?

Discipline reforms fall into two m ain categories: p ro ­ grams and policies. Some reform s are im plem ented at the district o r state level, some at the school level, and some are targeted directly tow ard specific individuals or groups of students. Table 1 provides an overview of reform s by type and level of im plem entation.

Which of these alternatives are most effective at reduc­ ing suspensions and improving student outcomes? Some of the approaches are “evidence-based,” meaning they have been the subject of evaluation research that can support causal conclusions about their effectiveness. However, many have yet to be rigorously evaluated. As reform efforts quickly outpace research evidence, many administrators, teachers, and policymakers are left to wonder: Are the new approaches having the intended effect? And what unintended effects might they have on students?

Program-Based Interventions Targeted programs. Programs that use the Response

to Intervention (RTI) model provide services to specific youth, with the goal of preventing further behavioral

Typology of Discipline Policy Reform (Table i)

problems by responding to behavioral issues as they arise. A key goal o f the approach is to tailor the intervention to the student: if a student does not appear to respond to a given approach, a m ore intensive intervention is applied. While one case study by Sarah Fairbanks and colleagues in 2007 suggests that office referrals decreased following im plementation of RTI, and teachers rated student m is­ behavior to be less intense and less frequent, few rigorous evaluations of RTI have been conducted.

A nother targeted program, restorative justice, uses peaceful and nonpunitive approaches to address misbehav­ ior and solve problems in school. While rigorous evidence on the causal impact of restorative justice on student out­ comes is scarce, Trevor Fronius and colleagues reviewed the descriptive literature and found that all studies docu­ mented decreases in the use of suspensions, expulsions, or violent student behavior, as the program was implemented.

Some programs combine multiple approaches, such as the Preventing Recidivism through Opportunities, M entoring, Interventions, Supports, and Education (PROMISE) program in Broward County, Florida. PROMISE employs both restorative justice principles and an RTI approach to promote conflict resolution and prevent gang involvement, drug use, and violence among

students. Qualitative research by Joan Collins-Ricketts and Anne Rambo sug­ gests that PROMISE is associated with lower suspension rates. However, given the lack of empirical evidence on the pro­ gram, we cannot discern whether such outcomes result from PROMISE or from other, independent factors. N or do we know about the impact o f the program on school climate, order, and safety—or outcomes for students in general.

Not all studies of targeted programs show promise. The Reconnecting Youth program provided classroom -based instruction for high school students at risk of dropping out or who exhibited problematic behavior. Hyunsan Cho and colleagues conducted an experimental study of the program’s impact and found no significant effect on delinquency immediately following the intervention or at the six-month follow-up.

School-based programs. Schoolwide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS) takes a “systems approach,” targeting a school’s overall social culture and providing intensive behavior supports, such as functional

Level of Implementation

Reform Type

Programs Policies

Targeted

Response to In te rv e n tio n

R e s to ra tiv e J u s tic e

R e co nn ectin g Y o uth

E a rly-w a rn in g in d ic a to r syste m s

School-level

S choolw ide P o s itiv e

B e h a vio ra l In te rv e n tio n s

and S u p p o rts (SWPBIS)

Safe and Responsive Schools

"N o e xcu se s" d iscip lin e approaches

District-level

Tea che r T ra in in g s

(My Tea che r P a rtn e r P ro gram )

School R esource

O ffic e r P ro gram s

D iscipline code of c o n d u c t changes

50 EDUCATION NEXT / W I N T E R 2 0 1 7 educationnext.org

S C H O O L D IS C IP L IN E STEINBERG & LACOE

behavioral assessm ents, identifying contexts w here behaviors occur, and teaching com m unication, social, and self-m anagem ent skills, as needed. The approach aims to change school culture by setting clear behavioral expectations, designing a continuum of consequences for infractions, an d re in fo rcin g positive behavior. SWPBIS is one o f the only interventions supported by strong evaluation research. M ultiple experim ental studies, including those by C atherine Bradshaw and Robert H orner and their colleagues, find that SWPBIS decreases school suspensions and im proves student perceptions o f school safety.

While SWPBIS focuses primarily on building social and emotional skills, the Safe and Responsive Schools (SRS)

agreements between districts, family courts, and police departments to resolve discipline issues using alternative strategies; and limit the ability o f SROs to arrest students. Some school districts have reported decreases in court referrals after implementation of SRO programs, especially for minority students, but there is little rigorous evidence on the efficacy of this approach.

Policy-Based Interventions In contrast to programmatic approaches, some reforms

involve changing the policies that guide districts, schools, and teachers as they respond to student misbehavior.

Targeted policies, such as early-warning indicator

CRITICS CONTEND THAT EXCLUSIONARY DISCIPLINE CAN TRIGGER A

DOWNWARD SPIRAL in STUDENTS' l iv e s inside and outside of

school, leading to the so-called school-to-prison pipeline.

project aims to reduce school violence and improve stu­ dent behavior. SRS focuses on preventative efforts, such as conflict resolution and crafting a civility code, and on developing specific responses to disruptive behaviors, such as behavior-support classrooms as an alternative to office referrals. A descriptive analysis o f four schools using SRS conducted by Russell Skiba and colleagues in 2006 found overall decreases in suspensions from the first year of SRS implementation to the end of the fourth year, with larger decreases in suspensions for students with disabilities.

District-level programs. P rogram s at the d istrict level often involve redefining how teachers and school resource officers (SROs) interact w ith students. (An SRO is a law enforcem ent or security officer assigned to a school who has the ability to make arrests and respond to calls for service.) Teacher training program s, such as the My Teacher P artner Program (MTP), provide su p p o rt for teachers to reflect on interactions w ith students and develop strategies to address behavior issues to achieve positive outcomes. O ne experim ental study in 2014 by A nne Gregory and colleagues found th at teachers in the MTP program suspended students less often than teachers in the control group, and when suspensions did occur, M TP teachers had equal suspen­ sion rates for African A m erican and white students.

Another district-level approach involves working with SROs to improve interactions with students and prevent the escalation of school-based incidents that are referred to juvenile court. SRO programs can provide training for SROs in cultural competence and teen psychology; forge

systems, use large administrative databases to systemati­ cally predict which students will struggle with academics or behavioral problems, with the intention of targeting those students early, before problems escalate. While little impact-evaluation research exists on the efficacy of early- warning indicator systems in reducing the use of exclusion­ ary discipline, implementation research suggests that if early-warning systems are not paired with a behavioral- support approach, they are unlikely to be effective.

School-level policies. Schoolwide disciplinary codes, such as the “no excuses” policies employed in KIPP schools, aim to set high behavioral expectations for all students. Under such a policy, students often receive detentions for m inor infractions (such as uniform violations) and automatic suspensions for other offenses. While this approach would seem to resemble an exclusionary policy, it aims to remove a sense of unfairness from the disciplinary scheme by hold­ ing all students to uniformly high standards. Evidence on the impact of no-excuses discipline on student behavior and suspensions is rigorous, but results are mixed. Two recent studies, one by Joshua Angrist and colleagues and another by Matthew Johnson and colleagues, found that atten­ dance at urban charter middle schools with high behavioral expectations is associated with a higher num ber o f days suspended relative to attendance at traditional schools in the same districts. Another study by Philip Gleason and colleagues found no difference in suspensions between charter school attendees and students who did not win the admissions lottery. A fourth study by Christina Tutde and colleagues found no difference in student perceptions of

e d u c a tio n n e x t.o rg W I N T E R 2 0 1 7 / EDUCATION NEXT

f e a t u r e S C H O O L D I S C I P L I N E STEINBERG & LACOE

the disciplinary enviro n m en t am ong m iddle school KIPP lottery w inners relative to lottery losers.

District-level policies. Changes to district policies guid­ ing school discipline a n d stu d e n t co n d u ct constitute a direct approach to reducing exclusionary discipline. M any states an d districts across th e country have revised their stu d en t codes o f conduct in recent years to rem ove harsh responses to m in o r disciplinary infractions and shorten the length o f suspensions. Revising student codes o f conduct to reduce th e use o f suspensions, particularly for lower-level offenses, shows prom ise as a strategy to reduce suspen­ sion usage (as in a study we conducted in Philadelphia). Notably, new evidence from N ick M ader and colleagues in Chicago finds th at there m a y b e few (if any) costs to school clim ate associated w ith red u cin g th e length o f o u t-o f­

district reform ed its code o f conduct to limit suspensions for nonviolent and m inor misbehavior, the use o f short­ term suspensions decreased in 60 percent o f Buffalo’s public schools, and long-term suspensions dropped in half o f them. Yet black and Hispanic students continued to receive 80 percent o f all suspensions, and were 6.5 and 3.7 times m ore likely to be suspended than white students, respectively.

T hird, w hat are the im pacts o f discipline policy reform s on stu d en ts w ho are disciplined, a n d do reform s have “spillover” effects o n th e ir peers? M aking significant changes to codes o f conduct o r im plem enting program s to shift the culture o f a school m ay cause difficulties for teach­ ers and students, at least in the sh o rt term . Evidence from Chicago indicates that, following a district reform aim ed at reducing the length o f suspensions for m ore serious

WE NEED FURTHER RESEARCH TO BETTER UNDERSTAND THE IMPLICATIONS OF DISCIPLINE POLICY REFORMS: how they a ffe c t suspension use, and also how th e y change school clim ate; inte ra ctio n s among students, peers, and teachers; and th e academ ic p erform ance of all students.

school suspensions for m ore serious student m isconduct. N inth-grade students there rep o rted neither increases in bullying behavior n o r a w orsening o f peer relationships in the year the code o f conduct reform was im plem ented. In fact, students reported th at student-teacher trust im proved by the second post-reform year.

Looking Ahead Across the country, disciplinary program s an d policies

are trending away from exclusionary practices an d tow ard a variety o f alternatives, w ith th e en d o rse m e n t o f federal an d state governm ents. Yet th e evidence base a b o u t the h a rm caused by suspensions, and the p otential benefits of o th er approaches, is surprisingly thin. Clearly, th ere is a great need for rigorous evaluation research, w hich should focus b o th on the im pact o f school discipline reform s an d o n th eir p o ten tial u n in te n d e d consequences.

Future research should address some key questions. First, is the reform an effective approach to reducing suspen­ sions? Has it been im plem ented with fidelity? Second, even if reforms succeed in decreasing the num ber o f suspensions, do they also succeed in reducing disproportionate suspen­ sion rates by race and disability? Descriptive evidence from Buffalo, N ew York, suggests that they m ay not. A report by Citizen Action o f N ew York in 2015 found that after the

offenses, school attendance increased am ong disciplined students w ith no adverse effect on the attendance o f their peers. T hough the increase in school attendance am ong disciplined students led to only very m odest im provem ents in their academ ic perform ance on state reading exams, it did n o t have a substantively negative effect o n their peers’ academ ic perform ance.

W ith fu rth e r research focused o n these key questions, we m ay com e to b e tte r u n d e rsta n d th e im plications o f discipline policy refo rm s—how they affect suspension use, a n d also h o w th ey ch an g e school clim ate; in te r ­ actions am o n g stu d en ts, peers, a n d teachers; a n d th e academ ic p erfo rm an ce o f all students. C hild ren need a safe, secure learning e n v iro n m e n t if th ey are to thrive in school. U n til we fully u n d e rsta n d th e benefits an d costs o f th e various approaches to discipline, b o th exclusion­ ary an d alternative, we will fall sh o rt o f pro v id in g th at supportive climate.

M atthew P. Steinberg is assistant professor at the University o f P ennsylvania’s Graduate School o f Education. Johanna Lacoe is a researcher at M athem atica Policy Research.

A version o f this article with fu ll references is available at educationnext.org.

52 EDUCATION NEXT / W I N T E R 2 0 1 7 e d u c a t i o n n e x t . o r g

Copyright of Education Next is the property of Hoover Institution Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.