AN ANALYSIS OF SCHOOL PUNISHMENT

AN ANALYSIS OF SCHOOL PUNISHMENT

Quentin Grill, Alex Lipschutz, Clara Valdes, Brittany Seidelman

Arizona State University

Abstract
AN ANALYSIS OF SCHOOL PUNISHMENT
2

School is a transformative institution. Central to transformation is learning. Opposing the

representative embodiment of a school’s manifest goal is punishment. Punishment methods in

schools is an enemy of learning and transformation. Punishment can follow a student, define

them to be a bad apple, this is a dangerous stigmatization that can affect a student’s school career

but can have greater implications on what they become outside of school. This paper will

examine how zero tolerance policies perpetuates systemic racism and other social injustices. The

second topic this paper will examine is the school to prison pipeline, and what the

aforementioned can do to a student’s trajectory. Then finally, there will be an analysis of if

restorative justice has merit as an alternative, along with suggestions for implementation of this

and similar practices.

Zero Tolerance Policies

AN ANALYSIS OF SCHOOL PUNISHMENT
3

Zero tolerance policies dictate consequences for a variety of misconducts with in a

school. These policies began in the 1980s in an effort to address the drug problem in the U.S..

Zero tolerance expanded, when the Gun-Free schools Act (GFCA), was passed by the federal

government in 1994. The GFCA required schools to expel any student who brings a weapon on

campus. Most public schools were impacted by the GFCA because by law, if they received any

federal funding, they were required to follow specific rules that became commonly known by the

name “zero tolerance” (Daniels, 2009). In response to the tragic shooting at Columbine High

School in 1999 schools toughened their zero tolerance policies and expanded them beyond

GFCA requirements by restricting more types of behaviors and making punishments more severe

(Daniels, 2009). The increase in restrictions also increased the number of students removed from

school without considering the circumstances, or reason for behavior. “By 2002, initial public

support for zero tolerance policies in schools had been replaced by public outrage over the long-

term effects of unfair discipline on students and their families” (Daniels, 2009).

Zero tolerance policies do not consider circumstances or severity before implementing

punishment. This results in a number of students being removed from school for small

infractions that could have been otherwise dealt with. Most affected by zero tolerance policies

are minorities and students with disabilities, have consistently been over represent in school

disciplinary consequences (American Psychologist, 2008). African American and Latino

students are more likely to be disciplined for minor misconduct and to receive punishment

disproportionate to their conduct (Harvard Civil Rights Project, 2002).

Removing a child from school through suspensions or expulsion disrupts their education and

increases the student’s inclination to drop out. More than 30 % of sophomores who dropout have

been suspended (Harvard Civil Rights Project, 2002). “The students who drop out are no longer
AN ANALYSIS OF SCHOOL PUNISHMENT
4

able to benefit from the protective elements of education, including keeping adolescents off the

streets and fostering positive peer relationships, both of which can increase the likelihood that

they will commit crime in the future” (Passero, 2018).

Zero tolerance policies focus on punishing a student rather than helping a student, which

then interferes with the healthy development of the child. Sometimes the only opportunity a child

has for positive adult interaction is at school. When those interactions are attributed to

punishment rather then encouragement they become discouraged and distrustful. Harsh

discipline also causes them to create misunderstood conceptions of fairness and justice. “As a

result, these policies from school and exacerbate the behaviors they seek to remedy.” (Harvard

Civil Rights Project, 2002). Instead of creating a more cohesive learning environment zero

tolerance is creating unwanted tensions and resentment.

In some cases further security measures such as on campus Police Officers, metal

detectors, random locker searches and uniforms were implemented to reduce the reduce crime

and violence in schools. Although Officers and metal detectors help keep weapons out of schools

there is not hard evidence that it has reduced the violence with in the school and also

criminalizes students for behavior that should be handled with in the school (Skiba,2000). Zero

tolerance has taken away the friendly learning environment and has created a prison like system

where students grow to resent authority and are removed from education they need. This

combined with the increase in suspensions and expulsions have lead to higher dropout rate and

criminal activity. Removing students from public education into the juvenile and criminal justice

system is known as the “school-to-prison-pipeline”.

School to Prison Pipeline:

AN ANALYSIS OF SCHOOL PUNISHMENT
5

The above-mentioned issues with zero tolerance policies have created a phenomenon known as

the school to prison pipeline. This can be defined as the way in which students who either drop

out or are expelled from school are far more likely to end up in prison later in life. In the United

States, which has the largest number of people incarcerated in the world, 68% of inmates did not

graduate from high school (BJS). It is also worth noting that students of color are

disproportionately affected by zero tolerance policies. There is strong evidence that black

students are 2.6 times more likely to be suspended than white students, while Latino students are

suspended at similar rates (Teske). These numbers mimic the racial composition of the United

States prison system as well. Recent data shows that black people make up 38% of the prison

population, but only about 12% of the national population (FBP). It is not likely to be

coincidence that black students are both more likely to be suspended or expelled from school and

also arrested in such large numbers. While it appears that there are strong racial motivations, this

is not, however, a strictly racial problem. The Federal Bureau of Prisons does acknowledge that

58% of the United States prison population is white, although white people make up at least 62%

of the national population. There is a great deal of debate over the reasoning behind this, but

there is a general consensus is that this has been caused by systemic racism.

The first step in the school to prison pipeline is, obviously, the schools themselves.

Through the use of zero tolerance policies the schools act as “filters” to separate the students

who are considered problems from those who are not. This is presented as the main reason for

racial bias in the system, as there are documented occasions of school officials making

unfounded determinations about students’ futures. One such example of this is shown in the

article "Schools, Prisons, & Implications of Punishment" by Pedro Noguera. In the article

Noguera talks about a school principal in Los Angeles who points out a black student and claims
AN ANALYSIS OF SCHOOL PUNISHMENT
6

that he already knows that student will be going to prison because his whole family is already

there. It is noteworthy that this particular administrator is black, but the problem of making

assumptions about students simply because of appearance and family background is very real.

While it is hard to quantify racial bias, it is evident in crime statistics, as well as media coverage

and the rates of violent police altercations involving people of color. This problem also exists

among the youth population. While the United States Department of Justice shows that youth

incarceration rates are declining as a whole, including among black children, the same study also

shows that arrest rates, when measured against white youth, still remain disproportionately high.

In fact, the arrest rate among black youth has increased compared to white youth. The next step

in the process is the youth justice system, which is the reason that this is where most people seek

reform. It is widely agreed upon that there must be an effort to make the justice system more

focused on reform, where it has previously been focused on punishment. The current atmosphere

of the youth justice system and its lack of ability to help students leads to recidivism among

young people who could otherwise be living productive lives. It is a known fact that the less time

a student spends in school, the more likely they are to drop out. There has been an effort to

counter this with an increase in the assignment of In School Suspension because students are still

able to keep up with their school work while being punished.

The presence of school resource officers is another major point of contention. A solid

case can be made that their use in school has been a significant contributor to the school to prison

pipeline. The fact that zero tolerance policies set rigid guidelines for dealing with things that

could potentially become legal infarctions. In cases of students committing minor infractions that

could be otherwise dealt with by the school administration, they are instead being issued

citations and having to appear in court. This again acts as a filter for students who are considered
AN ANALYSIS OF SCHOOL PUNISHMENT
7

undesirable in the school atmosphere. The fact that students are being punished with legal

consequences allows them to fall into youth incarceration. Such punishments continue to reflect

the racial disparities in the American prison population. Solutions to this exact problem will be

discussed later in this paper, however they tend to allow greater flexibility on the part of the

school.

An Alternative: Restorative Justice

As an alternative to suspension, restorative justice may be a more transformative practice

fitting for the school environment. In a school setting, students ought to have the chance to learn

from their mistakes, and in contrast to suspension a redemption model may be better. Above

listed problems with suspension were: removing high need populations from class, thus

excluding those who need to be included the most, not addressing the needs of the student, not

changing behavior. As restorative justice is considered an alternative, literature around it

evaluating its merit should serve as insight to its effectiveness. The article The effectiveness of

restorative justice practices: a meta-analysis aggregates data from ranging studies on restorative

justice. Their findings will be presented to address the merit of this alternative. After this meta-

study is analyzed, we will address literature about the implementation of restorative justice in a

school setting.

There should be a consistent basis for what restorative justice is. As defined by this meta-

study is “the main elements of the restorative process involve voluntariness, truth telling, and a

face-to-face encounter” (Latimer et. al., 2005). Implementation in the school setting requires

keen mediation on the right retribution for the offender. Restorative justice is a process that is

transformational and involves the reintegration of offending parties back into their communities

(Restorativejustice.org, 2018). Reintegration happens when the offender can become a

AN ANALYSIS OF SCHOOL PUNISHMENT
8

productive part of their communities by seeking retribution for previous actions. So, there are

claims that restorative justice addresses the above student issues that typical excluding practices

like suspension and detention do not.

Methods

This meta-analysis measures parameters to indicate statistical significance between

independent and dependent variables. Dependent variables selected were: victim and offender

satisfaction, recidivism, and restitution compliance. First, an individual effect size for each of the

four aforementioned parameters was calculated using pearson’s r product (to determine strength

of relationship between each independent and dependent variable). Next, the mean value,

standard deviation, and confidence intervals were found for each variable by compiling all the

studies. With this data collected, it is now cross referenced with non-restorative control groups.

A one sided t-test was used to compare the experimental with the control group. A t-test

measures how different the experiment data is different from the control data. This test was

conducted at a normal 95% confidence level. Lastly, individual characteristics were studied for

their magnitude of effect. Such as comparing significance of results between different

demographics.

This study compared 35 different previous studies. There were fifteen descriptors within

the study across seven categories. Individual characteristics are noted to be descriptors, but are

markedly different from the test variables. These descriptors include age, ethnicity, and gender of

participants. Other descriptors are of the study which are entry point, model, outcome measure,

and study score. Of the people included in each of these studies offenders were predominately

male (94.3%), youth (74.3%), and minority (54.3%) (Latimer et. al., 2005). The studies were

predominantly of mixed entry point (whether they are studying during or after restoration)
AN ANALYSIS OF SCHOOL PUNISHMENT
9

(57.1%), most outcomes measured recidivism (48.5%), and most models were victim offender

mediations (77.1%).

Results

The results of this study tell us a mean effect size, an associated confidence interval at the

.95 level, and some notes about the data itself for each of the four categories. For victim

satisfaction the mean effect size was 𝜇 =+.19 (SD = .18) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of

+.30 to +.08 (Latimer et. al., 2005). This means we assume restorative justice had 19% higher

mean victim satisfaction than the control studies. There is a high associated standard deviation,

suggesting there is high average variance from the mean between each of the studies. Our

confidence interval suggests the true mean lies between 8% and 30% higher with 95%

probability. These statistics were largely found through surveying the victims, of the studies

where the victim participated satisfaction was significantly higher.

Each of the other three variables can be interpreted similarly. For offender satisfaction

𝜇 =+.10 (SD = .28) and the effect sizes ranged from +.31 to –.71 (Latimer et. al., 2005).

Throwing away an outlier boosted the mean effect size to +.17, and lowered the SD to .14. For

recidivism 𝜇 =+.07 (SD = .13) with a 95% CI of +.12 to +.02 (Latimer et. al., 2005). The range

of this data was from +.12 to +.02 which is wholly positive but not greatly significant. For

restitution compliance 𝜇 =+.33 (SD = .24) (Latimer et. al., 2005). There was also high variability

+.63 to –.02 for restitution likely because of restorative justice hinging on restitution as

compared to a low focus on this factor in the control groups.

Conclusions

Each of the parameters mean values were found to be positive, and all but one had

positive ranges. Taken at face value, restorative justice seems to be more impactful than a
AN ANALYSIS OF SCHOOL PUNISHMENT
10

punitive approach. There is still room for analyzing descriptors, as in comparing effects of these

programs across demographics. The reader should also be cautious about the participants of these

studies. The attitudes of participants of an involuntary voluntary program may be different from

those electing to take part. This may lead to lower scores in offender satisfaction, compliance

and even recidivism. The recidivism parameter may be the most important. As argued in the

opening section, restorative justice may offer reintegration and transformation. A person is

reintegrated if they are back to being a productive part of their community, if the person is not

reintegrated then one of the fundamental proponents of restorative justice goes away. This

parameter was stated to have a mean effect of +.07, and a CI of +.02 to +.12. This is to say there

is a small positive difference in restorative approaches. With the amount of studies we are

sourcing from (22), we can be fairly confident that the measured effect size is significant, given

consistencies in approaches and data collection.

Another factor to consider when addressing our parameters is what types of restorative

protocol did participants engage in. This study may look different depending on how well

restorative justice addressed needed retribution. In a school setting restorative success may be a

function of mediation. To give students an avenue to repair and feel ownership of their

retribution may produce a higher mean effect.

Recommendations/Suggestions from the Group

Zero tolerance policies have been controversial for some time, first being implemented to

deter and prevent students from bringing weapons to schools in the 1990s. There has been some

debate as to whether or not the zero tolerance policies actually decrease school violence and

disruptive behaviors; however, there has been some disagreements regarding the idea of how to

best achieve the goal of maintaining disruptive behavior. Some people believe that
AN ANALYSIS OF SCHOOL PUNISHMENT
11

suspending/expelling students for their behavior is an appropriate way to stop students’

disruptive and chaotic conduct. On the other hand, there are other people who vehemently

disagree with zero tolerance policies because they are detrimental to students. These people

believe that there are more productive punishments that will still keep order in schools. The

school environment has to be conducive to learning because teachers cannot teacher and students

cannot learn in a climate that is filled with disruptions and chaotic.

Many alternative methods of punishments and help manage negative behaviors have been

explored in schools. Some recommendations/suggests my group has posed are character

education programs, social-emotional programs, targeted behavioral support for at-risk students,

positive behavioral interventions and supports, and staff training in classroom behavior

management.

While students need reinforcement for their behavior, some punishments are not always

productive or conducive to students’ learning and performance. With the implementation of

character education programs, students would need to go through this program if they commit

offenses such as bullying or harassment towards another student or faculty member (National

Association of School Psychologists, 2010, p. 2). The program would also show them what it

means to be a caring human being and give students advice on establishing positive relationships

with their peers and school staff. Social-emotional programs would work to accomplish a similar

goal. However, with this program, students would need to go through it when they commit an

offense where they were clearly overcome by their emotions (i.e. a fight)(National Association

of School Psychologists, 2010, p. 2). The social-emotional program would be similar to the

character education program in that this program would also focus on establishing positive

relationships with peers, staff, and parents. These two programs would work to help reduce
AN ANALYSIS OF SCHOOL PUNISHMENT
12

disruptive and chaotic behaviors among students so that schools can maintain an environment

that is conducive to learning. The programs would also give school staff a more positive and

productive option for punishment when students misbehave.

The steps to take to implement the character education and social-emotional programs

would be create classes that they have to take after school or on the weekend. These programs

will reform the students’ character and help them to establish strong, positive relationships with

faculty, staff, and peers (Advocacy & Communication Solutions, LLC, 2009, p. 12).

The stakeholders involved in the character education and social-emotional programs are

principals, vice principals, teachers, school behavioral specialists, students, and parents. All of

these people are involved in the implementation of the program so that students can be

successful and the school campus can become a safe environment that is conducive to learning.

Another alternative to zero tolerance policies is targeted behavioral supports for at-risk

students. Since many students who are affected by zero tolerance policies are classified as “at-

risk,” it would be a good idea to have a plan of action in place on the best ways to deal with these

types of students. The idea of the program is to involve students in weekly activities that will

help them to build their social skills (i.e. listening skills, anger management, conflict resolution).

When a student, who is classified as at-risk, misbehaves by fighting, bullying others in a violent

nature, or displaying threatening or aggressive behavior, the student will be required to have a

behavioral success plan drawn up by the school psychologist or behavior specialist and go

through specific workshops every week after school (Advocacy & Communication Solutions,

LLC, 2009, p. 13). Additionally, according to the article, there are programs in place that help

“at-risk” students who are high school age. They are: The Reconnecting Youth Program, Positive

Adolescent Choices Training (PACT), and First Steps to Success (Advocacy & Communication
AN ANALYSIS OF SCHOOL PUNISHMENT
13

Solutions, LLC, 2009, p. 13). Most states have these programs in place to help high school

students who are classified as an “at-risk” student.

Some stakeholders involved in this alternative are principals, teachers, “at-risk” students,

school psychologist/behavior specialist, and parents. These stakeholders, specifically the school

staff, will have to run the program and come up with the best material to help the students

involved in it.

Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) is another alternative to zero

tolerance policies. Used in more than 20,000 schools across the nation, PBIS is meant as a

proactive strategy to “encourage positive social behaviors, rather than focusing only on

punishing negative behaviors” (Advocacy & Communication Solutions, LLC, 2009, p. 13). In

PBIS, students are taught behavior expectations such as, “the ability to recognize and manage

emotions and to problem solve” (Advocacy & Communication Solutions, LLC, 2009, p. 14). The

students are taught these things just like the regular core curriculum subjects. This program

should be used for students who would normally be suspended for an extended amount of days.

Thus, instead of suspending the student, they must participate in a PBIS to help them with their

negative behaviors. The steps for implementation of this program would be to have students go

to intervention and support meetings with the school psychologist and/or behavior specialist

before and after school, maybe even on the weekends, if needed.

The stakeholders for this program would be principals, teachers, students, parents, school

psychologists, and the behavior specialist. These people would be involved to help students be as

successful as is possible in changing their behavior and helping with prevention of juvenile

incarceration.
AN ANALYSIS OF SCHOOL PUNISHMENT
14

Finally, to help keep misbehavior to a minimum or to prevent misbehaving students from

getting out of hand, it would be key to give teachers more training in managing classroom

behavior. Since most negative behaviors begin in the classroom and the teacher is usually the

first to report the misbehaving student, it would be ideal to be able to possibly stop the behavior

before it reaches outside of the classroom; therefore, providing training to teachers on the best

ways to deal with misbehaving students and certain negative behaviors will help lessen the

amount of students who get office referrals (National Association of School Psychologists, 2010,

p. 2). Schools could have workshops for their teachers on the weekends and/or before or after

school every week or a couple times a month (Advocacy & Communication Solutions, LLC,

2009, p. 3).

The stakeholders involved here are mainly teachers, principals, and vice principals. These

people would work to figure out the best practices for managing student behaviors in the

classroom and coming up with ways to keep them at bay or stop them period. The school staff

would use these workshops to make sure students are successful since misbehaving in school in

the biggest way that students end up out of school (Advocacy & Communication Solutions, LLC,

2009, p. 5).

Ultimately, there are many alternatives to the drastic actions of zero tolerance policies.

Many of these are plausible and helpful solutions to the “one strike, you’re out” policies that

common in schools now. While negative behaviors should be punished, the situation should be

looked at and fair punishments should be dished out instead of a “one size fits all” crimes. All

the methods mentioned work to help promote positivity and help students reform their behavior

instead of just suspending or expelling them, which is only detrimental to the student and denies
AN ANALYSIS OF SCHOOL PUNISHMENT
15

them the opportunity to an education, and more importantly, does nothing to fix the behavior

(Advocacy & Communication Solutions, LLC, 2009, p. 2).

References

Advocacy & Communication Solutions, LLC. (2009). Better Than Zero: How
Alternative Discipline is Replacing Zero Tolerance to Break the School-To-Prison
Pipeline. Advocacy & Communication Solutions, 1-17.

“Are Zero Tolerance Policies Effective in the Schools? An Evidentiary Review

and Recommendations.” American Psychological Association , Dec. 2008, apa.org

Daniels, P. (2009). Zero tolerance policies in schools. Detroit: Greenhaven Press.

Education and Correctional Populations. https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=814

Federal Bureau of Prisons. https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_race.jsp

Justice, R. (2018). http://restorativejustice.org/restorative-justice/about-restorative-

justice/tutorial-intro-to-restorative-justice/#sthash.nDVPtsE9.dpbs.

Latimer, J. (2005). The Effectiveness of Restorative Justice Practices: A Meta-Analysis.

AN ANALYSIS OF SCHOOL PUNISHMENT
16

The Prison Journal, 127-144.

National Association of School Psychologists. (2010). Zero Tolerance and Alternative

Discipline Strategies. Helping Children at Home and School, 1-3.

“Opportunities Suspended: The Devastating Consequences of Zero Tolerance and

School Discipline .” The Civil Rights Project , Harvard University , 15 June 2000,
civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12-education/school-discipline/opportunities-
suspended-the-devastating-consequences-of-zero-tolerance-and-school-discipline-
policies/crp-opportunities-suspended-zero-tolerance-2000.pdf.

Passero, Nina. “Department of Applied Psychology.” MS in Nutrition and Dietetics:

Clinical Nutrition - NYU Steinhardt, 2018,
steinhardt.nyu.edu/appsych/opus/issues/2016/spring/passero

Skiba, Russel J. Zero Tolerance, Zero Evidence. 2000, files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED469537.pdf.

Teske, S. C. (2011). A Study of Zero Tolerance Policies in Schools: A Multi-Integrated

Systems Approach to Improve Outcomes for Adolescents. Journal of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 24(2), 88-97.