School districts across the country appear to be relearning what’s obvious to any sensible observer: Well-run schools require discipline.
School districts across the country appear to be relearning what’s obvious to any sensible observer: Well-run schools require discipline.
R ecently, a furor erupted in Milwaukee Public Schools over new data showing that suspension rates were up — particularly for African-American students. Other jurisdictions such as New York City and Washington, D.C. have seen similar increases in the number of suspensions since before the pandemic. In each case, education officials and local media weep and gnash their teeth at the supposed injustice.
But is this upward trend actually a bad thing? Is it reflective of an authoritarian turn in schools or a deterioration of and response to worsened student behavior?
It marks the reversal of a downward trend in suspension rates after schools spent the better part of a decade deconstructing their behavioral codes. This no-consequence approach to discipline went under variable names: restorative justice, positive behavior interventions and supports, or teaching with love and logic.
In each case, the practices start with a few wrongheaded notions. First, any disparities in the rate of discipline among different racial groups must be due to racism on the part of school administrators. Second, misbehavior is seen not as a problem to be solved but rather as a form of “communication” that must be understood. Johnny bit Timmy because he doesn’t get enough hugs at home. To punish him, then, is inherently unjust. Finally, the ultimate goal of these alternative approaches is to keep the misbehaving child in the classroom — ostensibly so that they can continue to learn.
The Departments of Education and Justice first spurred this trend away from consequence in 2014, when they investigated numerous school districts with disparate suspension rates. Milwaukee was subject to one such investigation and saw suspensions decline dramatically by the time the investigation was closed — from about 22 percent in 2011 to 14 percent in 2015. In other jurisdictions such as New York City, suspension rates plummeted 50 percent. Under President Trump, enforcement declined, but under President Biden, new guidance has been released that may see renewed interest in district investigations.
Ask any teacher and they’ll tell you the results of this trend: chaos, violence, and general disorder. Last year, one of this piece’s authors worked at a school that had made a commitment to move away from suspensions and other forms of punitive discipline. By year’s end, a third of the staff had quit, and every single one of these teachers cited behavior as the primary reason.
Certainly, life circumstances can foster misbehavior, and children from broken homes deserve compassion. But compassion that metastasizes into leniency condemns the other 29 students in a classroom to deteriorating safety and academic achievement. What does permissiveness communicate to students? That the adults in the building expect nothing better from them and that anyone who follows the rules is a chump.
This isn’t just anecdotal evidence — there is ample research to back up the claim that soft discipline is harmful to other students in the class. Research for the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, conducted by one of the authors, found that students report feeling less safe in schools as suspension rates decline. And when students don’t feel safe in school, there are inevitably other negative effects. Academic research has found that leaving disruptive students unpunished in the classroom leads to broader academic declines for other students and even a decline in the support students have for one another.
We’ve learned this lesson in the broader debates over policing. As police pull back, crime rates spike. The same laws apply to human behavior in the classroom even if the infractions and subsequent punishments are less severe. “Abolish the police” crumbled under political headwinds, but that same philosophy has been promulgated in K–12 schools without challenge.
And while galling videos of hallway brawls or ruthless beatings make headlines and go viral, a minority of students will suffer such violence. Every child in a school, though, must deal with the anxiety of an unsafe building or the frustration at another cruel remark, another teacher impotently trying to quiet the class down, or another academic hour wasted.
Suspending students should never be the first choice — and it never is for school administrators. There is nothing at all wrong with parents and teachers working together to try to improve student behavior. But when these strategies don’t work, there must be a mechanism to ensure that one student’s bad day doesn’t compromise the learning of every other student in the classroom.
School districts across the country appear to be relearning what’s obvious to any sensible observer: Well-run schools require discipline. Districts from Las Vegas to the entire State of Florida are enacting laws and policies to bolster their discipline codes and empower teachers to maintain control of their classrooms.
These are heartening trends. Teachers and administrators working to create an environment conducive to learning should be supported — not cut off at the knees.
Will Flanders is the research director at the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty. Daniel Buck is a policy and editorial associate at the Fordham Institute.