Student Discipline & Consequences FAQ
How to build a fair, consistent discipline system that improves behavior without criminalizing students.
The Purpose of School Discipline
What is the actual purpose of school discipline?
The purpose of school discipline is to protect the learning environment -- not to fix individual students. We want every student to succeed, but the function of discipline is to keep everyone safe. If we fail at that, we put everybody at risk. That's a different goal than changing an individual student's behavior, and we need to be clear about the distinction.
Watch the video -->Isn't discipline supposed to change student behavior?
We hope it does, but that's not the primary goal. About half of students who get suspended never get suspended again, so it does change behavior in many cases. But even when it doesn't change the individual, it still does its job by protecting the school community. We're not therapists -- we're responsible for everybody.
Watch the video -->If consequences don't fix the underlying problem, what's the point?
Consequences put a boundary in place. They say "you can't do that here." Progressive discipline allows us to have proportional responses that aren't too severe for a given behavior, but also don't just tolerate the same thing happening over and over. The student may still struggle, but they won't be doing it at the expense of everyone else's safety and learning.
Watch the video -->Are consequences punitive?
There's a meaningful difference between punishment for its own sake and consequences designed to protect the learning environment. We've eliminated corporal punishment and other truly punitive practices -- and rightly so. But calling every consequence "punitive" is a rhetorical move that prevents schools from maintaining safety. Exclusion from the classroom isn't suffering. It's a boundary that says what you did was not okay.
Watch the video -->Suspension
Does suspension actually work?
The recidivism rate for suspension is about 50% -- meaning half of students who get suspended once never get suspended again. That's pretty good. For the students who do get suspended repeatedly, the behavior was going to continue regardless. But the more important question is: does the alternative work? And what we're seeing in schools that eliminated suspension is chaos, not improvement.
Watch the video -->Isn't suspension just a vacation for the student?
Maybe. But that's not the point. The primary concern needs to be everybody else's safety and learning at school. If a student is terrorizing a classroom, the 25 other students and the teacher need relief from that. What the suspended student does at home is between them and their parents. We can't psych ourselves out about whether they'll enjoy being home. That's the parent's job to manage.
Watch the video -->But what if the student's home environment is the problem? Won't suspension make things worse?
Students go home every single day. They're home on weekends, holidays, and all summer. If the home is truly so dangerous that you wouldn't send a child there for two extra days, you need to call CPS -- that's a mandatory reporting situation. But you can't argue it's unsafe to send a child home at 10 a.m. and then send them home at 3:30 anyway. This argument is usually about our guilt, not the child's safety.
Watch the video -->Why does suspension work as a consequence?
One reason suspension works is that it inconveniences the parent. When a parent has to come pick up their child or arrange childcare, they get engaged in addressing the behavior. When we keep kids at school no matter what, we're saying to parents: "It's never your problem." And many parents have demonstrated that if we never make it their problem, they'll never take it on.
Watch the video -->Is suspension a punishment?
No. Suspension is a boundary, not a punishment. Just like a fence around a construction site isn't punishing pedestrians, suspension isn't punishing the student. It's keeping the environment safe. We need to stop expecting suspension to rehabilitate -- that's a therapeutic goal, not a disciplinary one. Its purpose is to protect the school community.
Watch the video -->Should suspended students get zeros on all the work they miss?
No. Suspension and grades serve different purposes. Suspension addresses behavior; grades should reflect learning. Piling academic penalties on top of a behavioral consequence is punishment for its own sake, and that's not what we're doing anymore. Students returning from suspension should be able to make up their work, just as with any other absence.
Watch the video -->Progressive Discipline
What is progressive discipline?
Progressive discipline specifies modest but escalating consequences for misbehavior and repeated misbehavior. If a student gets in a fight, they might get suspended for a couple days. If they do it again, longer. If it continues, eventually they may be expelled. It's been universal in schools for over a century, and it's only in the last few years that we've stopped practicing it. That's why nobody had to teach it before -- it was just how things worked.
Watch the video -->Why do consequences need to escalate?
If the consequence is the same every time, students learn it's a manageable cost of misbehavior. Escalation sends a clear message: continued misbehavior will have increasingly serious results. This doesn't fix the behavior, but it does make the organization safer and more predictable -- for both the student tempted to misbehave and the potential victims who need to know they'll be protected.
Watch the video -->Why is consistency so important in discipline?
It doesn't matter much what your exact policies are. What matters enormously is that you follow them consistently. Predictability is what deters misbehavior. When you tweak consequences based on how you feel about an individual student, you destroy credibility with everyone. Stick with the policies you have and enforce them. That alone will transform your school climate.
Watch the video -->Should we give different consequences for the same behavior based on the individual student?
No. Follow your discipline policy. The correct answer to "how do you decide when to suspend?" is: follow policy. We can't base discipline decisions on speculation about what will change an individual student's behavior, because we're not psychologists. Under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, you have to treat students fairly. Different consequences for the same behavior will get you sued.
Watch the video -->What happened to detention? Should we bring it back?
Absolutely. Little consequences make a big difference. When you don't address low-level behaviors, they become big behaviors. Research shows that when you take away the ability to address lower-level behaviors, students' behavior worsens and they end up spending more time suspended for more serious issues. Detention disappeared because nobody likes it. But it works. Every school can implement lower-level consequences at very low cost.
Watch the video -->Restorative Practices
Why don't restorative practices work for school discipline?
Ten reasons, briefly: they're for mediating conflict, not addressing behavior; they put perpetrator and victim on equal footing; students catch on that talking isn't a real consequence; they wrongly assume bad behavior is a knowledge deficit; "repairing the harm" is just a fancy apology; they force victims to accept insincere apologies; they fail to protect the environment; consequences are what change behavior; they re-traumatize students by exposing them to repeated violence; and the evidence shows they make things worse.
Watch the video -->What's the "motte and bailey" of restorative practices?
When you criticize restorative practices, advocates retreat to "we just want relationships and communication" -- things every good teacher has always done. That's the motte, the defensible position. But the actual innovation -- the bailey -- is replacing consequences with circles. That's the part that's new, and that's the part that doesn't work. We've always built relationships. We're pushing back against the removal of consequences.
Watch the video -->Does restorative justice have a place in schools?
Not really. Restorative justice was designed for the criminal justice system -- for someone getting out of prison to sit down with victims and make things right. In schools, we have a completely different mission. We're here to teach, not to run relationship-restoring circles. On a time-use basis alone, it's strange. But the bigger problem is power: savvy kids learn that as long as they say the right things in a circle afterward, they can get away with anything.
Watch the video -->What's wrong with "repairing the harm"?
You can't unpunch someone. You can't unharass someone. "Repairing the harm" is a better-sounding version of apologizing -- but a forced apology is not enough when a student has been harmed. Worse, restorative processes put victims in a position where they're pressured by authority figures to forgive and forget. One bullying victim was forced to "hug it out" with her bullies. That's not healthy relationship modeling. That's re-victimization.
Watch the video -->Should we have consequences AND restorative practices?
If a behavior is serious enough for a restorative conversation, it's serious enough for a consequence. Restorative practices can complement discipline, but they should never substitute for it. The good parts of restorative practice -- caring about kids, building relationships -- are things teachers have always done. The problematic part is using them to replace consequences.
Watch the video -->PBIS and Rewards
Why can't PBIS work without consequences?
PBIS was originally about teaching expectations and reinforcing them -- which is fine. But somewhere along the way, the idea slipped in that you can replace consequences with rewards. You can't. Rewards work best for building intrinsic motivation temporarily, but if you reward expected behavior for everyone all the time, you undermine intrinsic motivation. And if you also remove consequences, kids get wise fast. Rewards are not a substitute for consequences.
Watch the video -->What do you think of ClassDojo and behavior point systems?
I can see the value of having an early warning system that tracks low-level behaviors across classes so someone can intervene before things escalate. But I'm skeptical of the points-and-prizes approach. Excessive focus on rewards and prizes for expected behavior has gone awry in a lot of schools. It tends to be the same kids getting flagged every time, and it doesn't substitute for real consequences.
Watch the video -->Behavior, Choice, and Accountability
Is behavior always a choice?
Yes. Our behavior is always under our control. There might be things that make self-control harder, but your amygdala does not control your muscles -- your cortex does. A lot of people are misapplying neuroscience to argue that students in fight-or-flight can't control their behavior. That's just bad neuroscience. One of our main jobs as educators is to help kids develop more appropriate reactions to the stressors of life, not excuse every reaction.
Watch the video -->Is all behavior really "communication of unmet needs"?
Maybe for babies. But for school-age kids, this framing goes too far. It says that as long as we find a reason to feel sorry for a student, we should accept any behavior. Yes, unmet needs can influence behavior. But that doesn't mean we can't have consequences. If you're hungry, you have a need that should be met -- but that doesn't excuse punching someone. Schools can't meet every need, and we have to be careful about scope creep into amateur healthcare.
Watch the video -->Why is "all behavior is communication" such a harmful phrase?
Because it's a sleight of hand that shifts blame from the student to the educator. When people respond to a student punching a teacher by saying "all behavior is communication," what they really mean is: "Why didn't you prevent this? What need did you fail to meet?" That's gaslighting. Students are responsible for their own behavior. If someone says this to you, look at them and ask: "What exactly do you want me to do with that?"
Watch the video -->Is behavior a teachable skill?
No. Skills are things you do -- like throw a football or solve a math problem. Not doing something is not a skill. Self-control is a thing, but it's not a skill you can teach like a lesson. When we frame behavior as a teachable skill, we end up blaming teachers: "What did you fail to teach?" Most students who misbehave already know the rules. The issue is choice, not knowledge. You can teach expectations, but you can't teach not-punching-someone as a curriculum unit.
Watch the video -->Should we focus on the "why" behind student behavior?
No. Trying to figure out the why before responding to misbehavior sounds sensible but is deeply counterproductive. Kids are not houseplants where you optimize conditions and they grow. They need to develop self-control. When we say "your bad behavior happened because I didn't make the lesson interesting enough," we're teaching a destructive lesson -- that their actions are someone else's fault. Whether a student hit someone out of anger, attention-seeking, or impulsivity, the consequence should be the same.
Watch the video -->Does all bad behavior come from unmet needs?
No. Unmet needs can affect behavior, but they're not the whole picture. We have motivation, free will, and the ability to make our own decisions. Telling a student "you threw a desk because you had an unmet need" is disempowering -- it takes the emphasis away from their ability to control themselves. Empathy and justification are two very different things. We can feel sorry for someone without letting them continue hurting others.
Watch the video -->Why should we stop framing self-control problems as skill deficits?
Because it's a form of gaslighting toward teachers. If every behavioral issue is framed as a skill deficit, then every time a student misbehaves, the teacher failed to teach the skill. But there's no such thing as a "not-doing skill." You can't teach someone the skill of not punching people. They already know how. Once a student knows the expectation, the teaching is done. What remains is self-control, and that belongs to the individual.
Watch the video -->Can a student in fight-or-flight really control their behavior?
A student can't choose not to be in fight-flight-freeze -- that's a real physiological response. But notice the slashes: there's a huge difference between freezing, fleeing, and fighting. If a student freezes or walks away, that's probably fine. What's critical is that they choose not to fight. Being in a stress response doesn't remove all agency. We can acknowledge the biology without using it to excuse harmful behavior.
Watch the video -->Trauma-Informed Practice
What does "trauma-informed" actually mean -- and what has it become?
Trauma-informed should mean understanding a student's background to better support them. But it's been co-opted to mean "no consequences" and "low expectations." Nowhere in the trauma research does it say removing all accountability helps students who've experienced trauma. In fact, consistency and predictability are what traumatized students need most. Lowering expectations out of pity isn't kindness -- it's disrespect for their potential.
Watch the video -->How did trauma-informed become a euphemism for low expectations?
Because pity feels like compassion but isn't. When we lower expectations because we feel sorry for a student, we're relieving our own discomfort, not helping the student. Every student who has benefited from their education benefited from high expectations and accountability, not from being pitied. If you're hearing "trauma-informed" used to justify no consequences, push back and ask: where does the research actually say that?
Watch the video -->What about the "dysregulation" language -- is it helpful?
New terminology temporarily blinds us to bad reasoning. When we say a student is "dysregulated" instead of "upset" or "throwing a fit," it sounds medical, which makes us think the solution should be clinical rather than behavioral. And then giving a kid a candy bar because they're "dysregulated" starts to make sense -- even though we know rewarding bad behavior spreads it. Paraphrase with the old terminology and the bad logic becomes obvious.
Watch the video -->Violence in Schools
When a student is violent, what should happen?
They need to be sent home. Period. When a student is violent and gets to stay in the classroom, everybody learns that violence is okay. De-escalation is necessary but wholly insufficient -- calming down is the floor, not the ceiling. We can't prioritize the violent student's learning over everyone else's physical safety. That's a Maslow's hierarchy issue: people have to be safe before they can learn.
Watch the video -->Why is sending violent students right back to class so harmful?
It creates a domestic violence dynamic. When a student assaults a teacher and returns to the same classroom, the teacher is forced to coexist with their attacker -- just like a DV victim. Would you tell your daughter to stay with someone who attacked her because they "just needed to calm down"? The only predictability we're creating by sending kids right back is the predictability that violence will happen again.
Watch the video -->Why are teachers quitting over violence?
Because they're being assaulted, threatened, or forced to feel unsafe -- and no other profession tolerates this. Teachers see lower-level violence not being handled, which makes worse violence predictable. The way we've always handled behavior effectively is through progressive discipline: if you do something unsafe, there are consequences, and if you do it again, there are more serious consequences. We've become squeamish about that, and teachers are leaving as a result.
Watch the video -->Should schools expel students who are repeatedly violent?
Yes. If a student is repeatedly assaulting people, progressive discipline will and should lead to expulsion. We have a much bigger obligation to keep everyone else safe than to keep that student around. Almost all school violence happens against children and female educators. The only way to keep yourself safe from a violent person is to get away from them -- and in schools, that means the violent student needs to be excluded.
Watch the video -->If a kid is throwing up, we send them home. Why not when they're throwing chairs?
Exactly. If a student is vomiting, everybody agrees they go home until they're well. The same logic should apply when a student's behavior makes it impossible for them to learn and for everyone else to be safe. Part of taking mental health seriously is recognizing our limitations as educators. We're not therapists. When behavior is so unsafe that school can't function, the family needs to handle it -- just like with a stomach bug.
Watch the video -->What about classroom destruction -- should we just let students tear up the room?
Absolutely not. This needs to stop immediately when it starts. First, it creates a legitimacy problem -- no parent trusts a school that lets classrooms get destroyed. Second, it traumatizes the teacher and students who have to come back to the wreckage. Third, it's a serious safety issue: about 45 kids a year die in furniture tip-over accidents. We are creating a protocol for students to hurt themselves. Take the student by the hand, walk them to the office. That's what we've done for a hundred years.
Watch the video -->Special Education and IEPs
Does an IEP mean we have to tolerate violence?
No IEP says "tolerate an infinite amount of violence from this child." We have an obligation to provide accommodations and supports, but not to accept being assaulted. When violence occurs with an IEP student, that's evidence something isn't working in the behavior plan -- not proof that we need to tolerate more. These students aren't going to have a special world waiting for them after school where violence is okay.
Watch the video -->How should we think about violence from students with IEPs?
Students with IEPs deserve procedural safeguards and a free appropriate public education, but not the right to assault people. If a student with an IEP is suspended more than 10 days in a year, there's a manifestation determination meeting -- it's not fun, but it's not the end of the world. This idea that you can never suspend a student with an IEP is simply incorrect. Special education is not the cause of our violence crisis; the tolerance of violence is.
Watch the video -->Should we write IEPs for every student who is violent?
Be very careful about circular reasoning: "The student is violent, therefore they have violence as a disability, therefore we can't do anything about it." That's not what EBD is for. Some students genuinely need specialized services and placements. But writing an IEP as a way to excuse violence rather than address it doesn't help the student and makes life miserable for everyone around them.
Watch the video -->The School-to-Prison Pipeline
Is the school-to-prison pipeline real?
I have not seen a single study that demonstrates a causal relationship between school discipline and incarceration. What the research shows is correlation -- and every freshman statistics student learns not to confuse the two. Behavior causes school discipline and behavior causes arrests. The more plausible explanation is that the same factors driving suspension also drive later incarceration -- not that suspension caused it.
Watch the video -->But what about all the research on the pipeline?
A funny thing happens when you actually read these studies. The title and introduction talk about the pipeline as if it's proven. Then in the methods and results section, you get a completely different story. Most cited research shows correlation between suspension and poor outcomes -- not that suspension caused them. If you have a study showing actual causation, I'd love to see it.
Watch the video -->Data and Accountability
Can we improve behavior by reducing suspension numbers?
No. You can't make a school safer by cheating on your discipline statistics. Campbell's Law tells us that when a measure becomes a target, people manipulate the measure rather than improving reality. When we hold schools accountable for suspension rates, what happens is that incidents get downgraded or not reported. The statistics look better, but reality doesn't improve for teachers or students.
Watch the video -->Where does disproportionality in discipline statistics come from?
Two sources: bias and upstream inequality. Bias happens within education and can be eliminated -- unfair policies, unfair application of policies. But even after eliminating all bias, you'll still have disproportionality because we live in a profoundly unequal society. Income, housing, nutrition, lead exposure -- all of these produce real consequences that show up in discipline data. We can fix the bias part, but we can't fix housing discrimination inside a school.
Watch the video -->Why are the worst behaviors we're seeing a direct result of no-consequences policies?
Because when you protect students against retaliation but free them to hurt others with no consequences, you've created an environment that incentivizes the worst behavior. Kids get furniture thrown at them and nothing happens. Policies encourage classroom evacuations instead of removing the disruptive student. There's no reason for that child to change their behavior. We're actively teaching kids that violence has no consequences.
Watch the video -->School Leadership
What's the #1 quality teachers need in a principal?
Backbone. Not innovative ideas. Not instructional expertise. The courage and willingness to follow through, hold boundaries, and have teachers' backs. When a discipline problem interferes with learning, teachers need to know their administrator will handle it. There is nothing wrong with a teacher who says "I need support with this student." That's inherent to the nature of school, and providing that support is a chief responsibility of school leaders.
Watch the video -->What should happen when a student gets sent to the office?
Schools need a clear distinction between classroom-managed and office-managed behaviors. Low-level stuff -- not doing work, minor noncompliance -- stays in the classroom, and the teacher contacts parents. But when there's a fight, a huge disruption, or violence, you send the student to the office. No calling the parent first. No keeping the student in class. Some behaviors are too serious for intermediate steps, and administrators need to handle them.
Watch the video -->Districts are afraid of lawsuits. How is that affecting discipline?
Fear of litigation is preventing districts from enforcing discipline policies, making schools unsafe. But here's the irony: failing to protect students from violence creates far greater legal exposure. A California district just paid $27 million because they didn't act on reported bullying that led to a student's death. The pendulum will swing back through lawsuits from the other direction -- from injured staff and traumatized students. That shouldn't have to be the catalyst, but it may be.
Watch the video -->Broader Questions
Can compassion and accountability coexist?
Absolutely -- and they must. Students who are having a hard time deserve both empathy and clear expectations. Compassion without accountability enables failure. When we make excuses for kids in the name of compassion, we're taking away the push to learn, to behave, to succeed. That's counterproductive. Accountability is itself a form of compassion -- it communicates belief in a student's ability to do better.
Watch the video -->How strict is too strict?
Strictness can be taken too far when it becomes petty, humiliating, or arbitrary. But right now, most schools err massively on the side of too few consequences. The sweet spot is being strict about the things that really matter -- safety, respect, being in class -- while being kind. Strictness is really just predictability: "If you do A, B will happen." That helps kids make good decisions when they have conflicting pressures to do otherwise.
Watch the video -->Is it hypocritical to support consequences for other people's kids but not your own?
It's the opposite that's hypocritical. Most parents enforce consequences for their own children because they know consequences work. Yet some educators argue against consequences for students they teach -- often students from lower-income backgrounds -- out of misguided pity. What makes consequences good for your kids but bad for someone else's? All children deserve the accountability that helps them function in society.
Watch the video -->"Have you tried building a relationship with the student?"
That line can never be an appropriate reaction to a student assaulting a teacher. Of course we build relationships -- that's what we all try to do. But the teacher-student relationship requires a context of authority where the teacher is respected and backed up. Relationships can't do the job of consequences. When we've created a societal context where kids don't have to listen to teachers and there are no consequences for hurting them, no amount of relationship-building can fix that.
Watch the video -->Should educators have the right to refuse service to dangerous students?
Yes. No other profession requires workers to accept violence as a condition of employment. Doctors refuse service they can't provide safely. We should be able to do the same. Refusing service to a student doesn't mean the district is out of options -- it means they need to find an appropriate placement. As long as teachers are willing to absorb unsafe placements, there's no demand for the specialized programs students actually need.
Watch the video -->Is gentle parenting behind the behavior problems we're seeing in schools?
Gentle parenting at its best includes firm, loving boundaries. But some parents are doing the extreme opposite of what they experienced as kids -- going from "too strict" to "no boundaries at all." The extreme opposite of something unhealthy is also unhealthy. If gentle parenting means your kid gets to hit you, hit their teacher, and be totally out of control with no consequences -- that can't work. Find a balance, not a pendulum swing.
Watch the video -->Should schools get out of the "behavior business"?
Largely, yes. A lot of what schools do to address behavior is behavior theater -- unproven interventions that make us feel better but don't actually work. Schools that hire behavior specialists, BCBAs, and behavior therapists typically aren't doing well with behavior in the first place, and the additional staff don't usually make a positive difference. We need rules. We need to enforce them. And we need to stop pretending we're qualified to do amateur behavioral therapy.
Watch the video -->Where should we draw the bright line for intolerable behavior?
Crime. If it would get you arrested at Walmart, it shouldn't be tolerated at school. Assault, destruction of property, threats -- these are crimes. Every day, crimes are committed in schools and treated as routine discipline issues. Schools have a much wider range of behaviors to manage, and many don't require suspension. But when actual crimes occur, we need to take decisive action, including involving law enforcement when appropriate.
Watch the video -->