Youth Voice: The Hidden Practice Pushing Students Out of School
February 28, 2018
Grace Schleisman, AmeriCorps Promise Fellow
This story is part of the “90 for All” series, which examines the challenges facing traditionally underserved students, particularly low-income and homeless students, English learners, students of color, and students with disabilities.
When most people talk about the problems with suspending or expelling students, they’re probably referring to zero-tolerance discipline policies. These policies automatically expel or suspend a student who brings a gun or drugs to school or is involved in a fight, and though well-intentioned, they often go too far, contribute to the school-to-prison pipeline, and unfairly discriminate against students of color, students with disabilities, and LGBTQ students.
Though it’s important to shine a light on these issues, there’s another practice in Minnesota that can be just as harmful, but doesn’t get the same attention: suspending or expelling students for “discretionary violations.”
Under Minnesota law, educators can dismiss youth if the “willful conduct...significantly disrupts the rights of others to an education.” There are a few major problems with this.
The Problem with Discretionary Violations
One, the law does not require educators to ask students some underlying questions around their behavior before dismissing the student. Rather, it asks for the educator to decide, one way or the other, about how “willful” the behavior is. Similarly, “disruptive” is just as broad of a descriptor.
Second, that language is highly subjective. What might feel disruptive for one student or teacher is not disruptive to another. For example, when a student refuses to take out their pencil for class, one teacher may send them to the office whereas another teacher might try to redirect the behavior. Administration and educators are often allowed to make the subjective decision about who belongs in the classroom and who does not.
During the 2015-2016 MN school year, disruptive/disorderly conduct made up the highest percentage of discipline issues at 36.79 percent, according to the 2017 Dangerous Weapons and Disciplinary Incidents report. Fighting, which falls under the zero-tolerance discipline policy, came in as the second highest at 17.77 percent.
Just like zero-tolerance policies, these practices are often tinged with racial bias. According to this 2015 Minnesota Department of Education report on teacher supply and demand, 96.5 percent of teachers in the state of Minnesota are white. This is critical to know when we see that, for example, black youth in Minnesota are seven times more likely to be suspended or expelled than white youth.
This does not mean that more black youth are breaking rules; it simply points to a number of systemic issues lying within the administration. One of these significant issues is implicit racial bias.
Implicit Racial Bias Causes Low Expectations
A 2015 study from the Economics of Education Review examined whether student-teacher demographic mismatch affects high school teachers’ expectations for students’ educational attainment. The study found that “non-black teachers of black students have significantly lower expectations than do black teachers.”
These low academic expectations for black students by some teachers can also apply to the behavior expectations of black students and other students of color; they are often expected to be more disruptive and less focused when compared to their white peers.
Racial bias, among other forms of discrimination, is clearly at play when we examine the pushout effect and start questioning the differences in discipline decisions from student to student. There are clear systems of power and oppression that impact how decisions get made by teachers and administrators, preventing students from staying on track to graduation and increasing the odds they’ll end up in the prison system.
You might not hear a news story about the students who are sent home for not taking out their pencils. You might not read many articles about the students who are suspended because they can’t sit still in their desks. But there is danger in “discretionary violations,” and we can’t afford to overlook them.
Learn more about the GradNation State Activation initiative
The GradNation State Activation initiative is a collaboration between America’s Promise Alliance and Pearson to increase high school graduation rates by encouraging statewide innovation and collaboration, sharing that knowledge and replicating what works, and developing successful models all states can replicate.
Join the GradNation Learning Community
To get more news about graduation rates and effective practices to increase them, join the GradNation Learning Community, a hub for sharing strategies and successful practices. Just send an email to [email protected] with your name, email address and organizational affiliation. To join the conversation on Twitter, use #GradNation
The 5 Promises represent conditions children need to achieve adult success. The collective work of the Alliance involves keeping these promises to America’s youth. This article relates to the promises highlighted below:
These six platform areas are based on the collective experience and expertise of individuals at organizations engaged with young people across the country, the experience of young people themselves, and our own research. The platform areas are a statement of best practice – they are what has been demonstrated to work to improve graduation outcomes for young people:
Harsh discipline practices focus on assigning guilt, but restorative justice works to identify why something happened and what the student and the community needs in order to move forward. It allows young people to be viewed as the holistic individuals they are, and it builds a better foundation to start conversations around relationship-building.