The Coming School-Discipline Wars

E arlier this month, the teachers union in Akron, Ohio, reached a deal with the district to avert a threatened strike. Lost in coverage of the deal was a peculiar sticking point that had held up the negotiations: Changing the definition of “assault” to replace the word “contact” with the word “injury.”

An assault committed by a student warrants consideration for expulsion. But district administrators were worried about students’ “exclusion from the education process,” and so, in an Orwellian turn, they’d proposed to solve the problem through redefinition. But union members opposed the proposal, and successfully fought to keep it out of the final deal.

The district’s attempt to alter its behavior code is part of a growing trend in districts across America. Where national headlines feature debates over the abolition of police or bail reform, the same ideas behind such progressive movements are percolating through American education, manifesting in reductions in suspensions and expulsions, loosened behavioral expectations, the removal of school-resource officers, and other unwelcome changes.

Unsurprisingly, schools across the country are suffering worsening behavior as a result. The tussle over the definition of assault in Akron came after a student was stabbed in an Akron school on December 1. The stabbing was the second such incident in a month, part of a rising tide of violence in district schools, which last year recorded 60 physical assaults against staff from the beginning of January to late November. At a school board meeting in Akron, teachers complained about severe misbehavior but inconsistent discipline. Other teachers have gone public with their concerns about chaos in schools.

Akron’s union is the first to threaten a strike over such chaos, but it’s unlikely to be the last. Discipline in our schools is increasingly making its way to the center of our educational debate. And rightly so: Schools’ curricula, uniforms, and pedagogical approaches matter little if they can’t maintain a basic level of student discipline. If a school doesn’t have a rigid, enforced, fair disciplinary code, it will descend into chaos. The order that comes from properly disciplining students is a precondition for everything else a school does.

Strengthened discipline policies needn’t offer zero tolerance for youthful fun or whimsy. Rather, successful behavior policies sweat the small stuff. When administrators dole out smaller consequences for minor infractions such as tardiness or improper attire, normal adolescent rebellion manifests as showing up to class close to the bell or wearing a loosened tie; when they don’t, such rebellion can manifest as violence or big shows of insubordination. When districts clearly delineate discipline policies — which infractions warrant which responses — students will know exactly what’s expected of them. And when administrators have the backbone to enforce those policies, in my experience, most students will behave themselves.

Conservatives will argue from a strong position if they take up this debate. Trendy, progressive approaches to student discipline have proven disastrous, leading to deteriorating academic performance, increased class disruptions, more bullying and truancy, and spikes in violence. Conservative governors and school-board members have won seats defending school choice and battling progressive politics in the classroom. They could find similar success defending discipline in schools. They may even be surprised as teachers nod along in agreement with them. Indeed, educators largely support stricter approaches to student behavior. A report from Policy Exchange summarizes how most teachers feel about classroom chaos: “It Just Grinds You Down.”

Republicans have become the party that voters trust on education. Fighting for discipline in schools is the right thing to do, and it will win them even more support.