Suspension & Exclusionary Discipline FAQ
When suspension is appropriate, when it isn't, and how to reduce it without losing order.
Does suspension actually work?
Yes, and the data backs it up. About 50% of students who are suspended once never get suspended again. That's a solid recidivism rate for any intervention. But we also need to redefine what "work" means — suspension's primary job is to protect the school community, not to permanently fix an individual student's behavior. (Does Suspension Work?)
Isn't suspension just a vacation for the student?
Even if a student enjoys being home, that's beside the point. The purpose of suspension is to keep 25+ other students and staff safe so learning can continue. We can't psych ourselves out worrying about whether the suspended student is having too good a time — the priority is the safety and education of everyone else. (Is Suspension Really a 'Vacation' for the Student?)
What is the school-to-prison pipeline, and is it real?
The school-to-prison pipeline is the claim that school discipline causes students to end up incarcerated. It's based on a fundamental confusion between correlation and causation. Students who misbehave at school and students who later get arrested share the same underlying behavioral patterns — one doesn't cause the other, just as taking ibuprofen doesn't cause future headaches. (The School-to-Prison Pipeline Is a Persistent Edu-Myth)
What about the research that supports the school-to-prison pipeline?
When you actually read these studies — not just the titles and abstracts — the methods and results tell a different story than the narrative. Most rely on correlational data, and many fail to account for unobserved variables like student behavior. The Browne-Hoge study, for example, confuses suspension rates with school strictness without controlling for the actual rate of behavior problems. (The So-Called School-to-Prison Pipeline: Here's My Take on the Browne-Hoge Study)
Why do so many people believe suspension harms students?
Because the narrative is emotionally appealing and the correlational data looks convincing at first glance. People see that suspended students have worse life outcomes and assume suspension caused those outcomes. But of course students who get in trouble at school are more likely to get in trouble in life — that's not evidence that the consequence caused the trajectory. (Why Do So Many People Think Suspension Is Bad for Students?)
Don't studies show that more severe consequences lead to worse outcomes?
These studies make the same error as claiming ibuprofen causes headaches because people who take more ibuprofen get more headaches. Students who receive more severe consequences tend to have more severe behavior — and that behavior is what drives both the consequences and the outcomes. The study didn't find that consequences made things worse; it found that the same students keep struggling. (Does Ibuprofen Cause Future Headaches? Yet Another Correlational Study on Suspension)
Where's the research showing exclusionary discipline doesn't work?
I've been asking this question for years, and nobody has produced a rigorous study demonstrating that exclusionary discipline is harmful or ineffective. People repeat "the research says it doesn't work" without ever citing the research. Most of what gets cited is correlational — and correlation between suspension and poor outcomes is exactly what we'd expect, because the same behaviors drive both. (Exclusionary Discipline Doesn't Work? Says Who — Show Me the Research)
Is suspension a punishment or a boundary?
It's a boundary. Suspension is not about causing a student to suffer — it's about keeping the school environment safe. Think of it like a domestic violence situation: the first priority is getting people away from danger, not changing the person who's being dangerous. We may not be able to permanently change the student's behavior, but we can protect everyone else. (Suspension Is a Boundary, Not a Punishment)
Is it compassionate to suspend a student?
Flip the question: Is it compassionate to teach students that violence has no consequences? When we keep violent students in school without consequences, we model that violence is acceptable. That's a maladaptive life lesson. True compassion means setting boundaries that protect everyone — including teaching the violent student that hurting people is not okay. (Is Suspension Compassionate? Is It Compassionate to Teach That Violence Is OK?)
What about the argument that home is the problem, so we shouldn't send kids there?
Students go home every single day. They're home all summer, every weekend, and every evening. If home is so dangerous that you can't send a student there for two extra days, you need to call CPS — that's a mandatory reporting situation, not a reason to avoid discipline. We can't use "home is the problem" as an excuse to let violence continue at school. (Stop Saying We Can't Suspend Because 'Home Is the Problem')
Does out-of-school suspension give students more time to get into trouble?
Students spend only about 10.4% of their lives in school. A three-day suspension adds 21 hours to the 7,000+ hours a year they already spend outside of school. The idea that those extra hours will meaningfully change a student's trajectory just doesn't hold up mathematically. If a student is going to get into trouble, they already have more than enough unsupervised time to do so. (Does Out-of-School Suspension Give Students More Time to Get into Trouble?)
Why does suspension work as a consequence even if it doesn't "fix" the student?
One major reason: it inconveniences the parent. When a child gets sent home, the parent has to deal with it — arrange childcare, leave work, face the reality that their kid's behavior is now their problem. That parental engagement is often what actually changes things. When we keep kids in school no matter what, we're telling parents their child's behavior is never their problem. (Suspension Works Because It Inconveniences the Parent)
If suspension is reinforcing, doesn't giving snacks for bad behavior reinforce it too?
Exactly — and that's the inconsistency. Critics claim suspension reinforces bad behavior because it's a "reward," but then they support giving students snacks and calm-down breaks after violent outbursts. You can't have it both ways. If external motivators matter, they matter in both directions. The bigger concern isn't a brief vacation from school — it's the power a violent student gains when no one can remove them. (Suspension Is 'Reinforcing' but a Snack Isn't?)
When a student is violent, what should happen?
They need to be sent home. In a compulsory school environment, the healthy response to violence is to get away from the person — but students can't leave. So the school has to remove the violent student instead. Keeping a violent student in school models that violence is tolerable, which is the wrong lesson for everyone, including the violent student. (When a Student Is Violent, They Need to Be Sent Home)
Why can't we just use natural consequences instead of exclusion?
The natural consequence of violence is retaliation — and obviously schools can't allow that. Since we prohibit students from defending themselves physically, we owe them a different mechanism for safety. Exclusion is that mechanism. It's the least harmful consequence that actually does the job of interrupting violent behavior and protecting everyone in the building. (We Can't Use Natural Consequences for Violence — Exclusion Is the Only Humane Option)
What happens when districts ban suspensions for fighting?
You get a fight club. When students figure out that fighting won't get them sent home, the incentive to avoid violence disappears. Every school that removes consequences for fighting sees an increase in violent incidents. This is entirely predictable, and the administrators stuck with these policies are in an impossible situation created by policymakers who've never worked in a school. (No Suspensions for Fighting? That's How You Turn Your School into a Fight Club)
What can schools do when state law bans suspension?
First, actually read the law — most laws still permit suspension for violence, even if they restrict it for other offenses. If the law truly bans suspension, look into alternative placements, district alternative programs, or long-term educational reassignments. The laws were not research-based, and we're now dealing with the consequences of having no consequences. Push back through proper channels. (What Can Schools Do When Suspension Is Illegal Under State Law?)
Why is exclusionary discipline the best response to dangerous behavior?
Because the behavior that got the student removed was already stopping learning. Excluding a violent or disruptive student doesn't reduce learning — it increases learning for everyone else. Exclusion is also the most humane serious consequence we have. Historical alternatives were far worse. And the concept isn't new — inclusion and exclusion based on behavior is as old as human society itself. (Exclusionary Discipline Isn't Bad — It's the Best Consequence for Dangerous Behavior)
Is exclusion ever the wrong tool?
Exclusion is the right tool for violence, persistent disruption, and behavior that makes the environment unsafe. It's probably not the right first response to minor misbehavior or a kid having a bad day. In-school suspension works for many situations. But when we're talking about safety threats — fights, assaults, throwing furniture — there is no alternative to removing the student from the environment. (Exclusion Is the Right Solution to Many Behaviors)
Should students get zeroes on work they miss during suspension?
No. Suspension is a behavioral consequence, not an academic one. Piling zeroes on top of a suspension is punitive in a way that has nothing to do with learning. Students returning from suspension should be able to make up their work or be excused from it, just like any other absence. Grades should reflect what students learned, not whether they were in trouble. (Get Suspended, Get Zeroes on Everything You Miss? No.)
Why don't policymakers understand the need for suspension?
Because they've never worked in a school. People who make discipline policy from a distance don't see what teachers and administrators face every day. If you think schools can run safely without progressive discipline, come substitute for a week. The frontline reality is that consequences — including suspension — are essential, and removing them has predictable, harmful results. (Policymakers Who Think Schools Don't Need Suspension for Violence Have Never Worked in a School)
What is anti-suspension NIMBYism?
It's the phenomenon where advocates push to eliminate suspension in schools their own children don't attend. The activists quoted in articles about California's willful defiance ban don't send their kids to LAUSD schools. They support removing consequences for other people's children while their own kids attend schools with traditional rules and high expectations. If a policy isn't good enough for your kid, it shouldn't be good enough for anyone's kid. (Anti-Suspension NIMBYism: These Policies Are Only Good Enough for Other People's Kids)
What's happening in countries that banned suspension entirely?
Scotland eliminated school exclusions for violent behavior, and now a third of their teachers report being physically assaulted at work. The government is reconsidering the policy. This is exactly what happens when you remove consequences for violence — you get more violence. No education profession can survive if getting kicked, hit, or having furniture thrown at you is considered part of the job. (1/3 of Teachers in Scotland Report Being Physically Assaulted at Work)
Is exclusionary discipline the only adequate response to violence?
For actual violence — hitting, punching, assaulting staff or students — yes. Students and staff deserve to be protected from physical harm, period. If a violent student burns through every adult willing to work with them, that's a natural consequence. You don't get infinite chances to beat people up. That's true in school, and it's true in life. (Exclusionary Discipline Is the Only Adequate Response to Violence)
Can we really do away with suspension altogether?
No. You cannot run a school and promise in advance that no behavior will ever result in removal. When students are throwing furniture, assaulting teachers, and fighting daily, the learning environment collapses. We need counselors, mental health support, and many interventions — but none of those replace the basic safety mechanism of being able to say: you can't be here if you do that. (Can We Do Away with Suspension?)