Suspension Policies in Schools: Are they Effective?
Although there can be no dispute that schools must do all that can be done to ensure the safety of
learning environments, controversy has arisen about the use of zero tolerance policies and procedures to
achieve those aims. In response to that controversy, and to assess the extent to which current practice
benefits students and schools, the American Psychological Association convened a task force to evaluate
the evidence and to make appropriate recommendations regarding suspension and zero tolerance
policies and practices.
General Findings:
Suspension Lowers School Completion
Suspension is also correlated with dropping out of school. In one survey of students who either dropped
out or completed high school, the percentage of students who had ever been suspended or placed on
probation was 21% higher for the dropout than the school-completion group. Of students who dropped
out, 13% of males and 5% of females gave having been suspended as one of their reasons for leaving
school (Ekstrom, Goertz, Pollack, & Rock, 1986).
Similarly, in another study, more than a third of suspended students were suspended three or more times
in the year (Morgan-D’Atrio et al., 1996). Clearly, then, there is a group of students who are regularly
suspended and whose behavior does not change as a result of that experience. In fact, Costenbader and
Markson (1998) argue that suspension may be a reward for those students who do not want to be in
school or who are seeking a way to avoid difficult or unpleasant educational tasks.
For reasons related to child development, middle-schoolers are more likely than younger or older
students to be suspended (Mendez & Knoff, 2003).
 The student is three times more likely to be Black than White (e.g., Skiba et al., 2002). Both Black
males and females are suspended at rates two or three times higher than their White or Hispanic
peers beginning as early as elementary school (Mendez & Knoff, 2003).
 Black males are the students most likely to be suspended, often for relatively minor infractions, but
males of all races are more likely to be suspended than their female counterparts (Mendez & Knoff,
2003; Skiba et al., 2002)
 Students of low socioeconomic status are more likely than other students to be suspended (Skiba
et al., 2002).
 Students are likely to have a history of being persistently disruptive in relatively minor ways (Skiba
et al., 1997).
 Almost three-quarters of suspended students have deficits in academic or social skills or both.
Percentages were fairly equally divided among those with academic deficits, social skills deficits,
and academic plus social skills deficits (Morgan-D’Atrio et al., 1996).
 Teachers are significantly more likely to rate frequently suspended students as hyperactive,
aggressive, and lacking in social skills (Atkins et al., 2002).
 Students who are frequently suspended are likely to be alienated from school. Students who have
been internally suspended have lower school interest scores than never-suspended students, and
externally suspended students have the lowest school interest scores of all (Costenbader &
Markson, 1998).
Key Assumptions of Zero Tolerance Policies
We examined the data concerning the following key assumptions of zero tolerance policies. In general,
data tended to contradict the presumptions made in applying a zero tolerance approach to maintaining
school discipline and order:
1. Are Zero Tolerance Policies more effective in handling disciplinary issues?
Assumption: School violence is at a crisis level and increasing, thus necessitating forceful, nononsense strategies for violence prevention.
Although any level of violence and disruption is unacceptable in schools and must be continually
addressed in education, the evidence does not support an assumption that violence in schools is out of
control or increasing. Incidents of critical and deadly violence remain a relatively small proportion of
school disruptions (Heaviside, Rowand, Williams, & Farris, 1998), and the data have consistently
indicated that school violence and disruption have remained stable, or even decreased somewhat, since
approximately 1985 (DeVoe et al., 2004; National Center for Education Statistics, 2006).
2. Do zero tolerance increase the consistency of school discipline and thereby the clarity of the
disciplinary message to students?
Consistency, often defined as treatment integrity or fidelity (Lane, Bocian, MacMillan, & Gresham,
2004), is an important criterion in the implementation of any behavioral intervention (Patterson, Capaldi,
& Bank, 1991). There is no evidence, however, that zero tolerance has increased the consistency of
school discipline. Rates of suspension and expulsion vary widely across schools and school districts
(Kaeser, 1979; Skiba, Peterson, & Williams, 1997), and this variation appears to be due as much to
characteristics of schools and school personnel (e.g., disciplinary philosophy, quality of school
governance) as to the behavior or attitudes of students (Mukuria, 2002; Raffaele-Mendez, Knoff, &
Ferron, 2002; Wu, Pink, Crain, & Moles, 1982).
3. Does the removal of students who violate school rules create a school climate more conducive to
learning for those students who remain?
A key assumption of zero tolerance policy is that the removal of disruptive students will result in a safer
climate for others (Ewing, 2000). Although the assumption is strongly intuitive, data on a number of
indicators of school climate have shown the opposite effect, that is, that schools with higher rates of
school suspension and expulsion appear to have less satisfactory ratings of school climate (Bickel &
Qualls, 1980), to have less satisfactory school governance structures (Wu et al., 1982),and to spend a
disproportionate amount of time on disciplinary matters (Scott & Barrett, 2004). Perhaps more important,
recent research indicates a negative relationship between the use of school suspension and expulsion
and schoolwide academic achievement, even when controlling for demographics such as socioeconomic
status (J. E. Davis & Jordan, 1994; Raffaele-Mendez, 2003; Skiba & Rausch, 2006). Although such
findings do not demonstrate causality, it becomes difficult to argue that zero tolerance creates more
positive school climates when its use is associated with more negative achievement outcomes.
4. Do the swift and certain punishments of zero tolerance have a deterrent effect upon students, thus
improving overall student behavior and discipline?
The notion of deterring future misbehavior is central to the philosophy of zero tolerance, and the impact of
any consequence on future behavior is the defining characteristic of effective punishment (Skinner, 1953).
Rather than reducing the likelihood of disruption, however, school suspension in general appears to
predict higher future rates of misbehavior and suspension among those students who are suspended
(Bowditch, 1993; Costenbader & Markson, 1998; Raffaele-Mendez, 2003; Tobin, Sugai, & Colvin, 1996).
In the long term, school suspension and expulsion are moderately associated with a higher likelihood of
school dropout and failure to graduate on time (Bowditch, 1993; Ekstrom, Goertz, Pollack, & Rock, 1986;
Wehlage & Rutter, 1986). Although some students appear to make use of suspension or expulsion as an
opportunity to examine their own behavior, the available evidence also suggests that students in general
regard school suspension and expulsion as ineffective and unfair (Brantlinger, 1991; Thorson, 1996).
References
Atkins MS, McKay MM, Frazier SL, Jakobsons LJ, Arvanitis P, Cunningham T, Brown C, Lambrecht L.
(2002, August). Suspensions and detentions in an urban, low-income school: Punishment or reward?
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30(4), 361-371.
Bickel, F., & Qualls, R. (1980). The impact of school climate on suspension rates in the Jefferson County
Public Schools. Urban Review, 12, 79–86.
Bowditch, C. (1993). Getting rid of troublemakers: High school disciplinary procedures and the production
of dropouts. Social Problems, 40, 493–507.
Brantlinger, E. (1991). Social class distinctions in adolescents’ reports of problems and punishment in
school. Behavioral Disorders, 17, 36–46.
Costenbader, V., & Markson, S. (1998). School suspension: A study with secondary school students.
Journal of School Psychology, 36, 59–82.
Davis, A. (1999, November 18). “Zero tolerance” ignites debate in Hartford: Meeting on drug problem
draws hundreds to school; Expulsions are hot topic. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, p. 1.
Davis, J. E., & Jordan, W. J. (1994). The effects of school context, structure, and experiences on African
American males in middle and high schools. Journal of Negro Education, 63, 570–587.
DeVoe, J. F., Peter, K., Kaufman, P., Miller, A., Noonan, M., Snyder, T. D., & Baum, K. (2004). Indicators
of school crime and safety: 2004 (U.S. Departments of Education and Justice, NCES 2005–002/NCJ
205290). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Ekstrom, R. B., Goertz, M. E., Pollack, J. M., & Rock, D. A. (1986). Who drops out of high school and
why? Findings from a national study. Teachers College Record, 87, 357–373.
Ewing, C. P. (2000, January/February). Sensible zero tolerance protects students. Harvard Education
Letter. Retrieved July 21, 2004, from http://www.edlettr.org/past/issues/2000-jf/zero.shtml
Heaviside, S., Rowand, C., Williams, C., & Farris, E. (1998). Violence and discipline problems in U.S.
public schools: 1996-97 (NCES 98- 030). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National
Center for Education Statistics.
.
Kaeser, S. C. (1979). Suspensions in school discipline. Education and Urban Society, 11, 465–484.
Lane, K. L., Bocian, K. M., MacMillan, D. L., & Gresham, F. M. (2004). Treatment integrity: An essential—
but often forgotten—component of school-based interventions. Preventing School Failure, 48, 36–44.
Morgan-D'Atrio C, Northup J, LaFleur L, Spera S. (1996). Toward prescriptive alternatives to
suspensions: A preliminary evaluation. Behavioral Disorders, 21, 190–200.
Mukuria, G. (2002). Disciplinary challenges: How do principals address this dilemma? Urban Education,
37, 432–453.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2006). Indicators of school crime and safety, 2006. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Patterson, G. R., Capaldi, D. M., & Bank, L. (1991). An early starter model for predicting delinquency. In
D. J. Pepler & K. H. Rubin (Eds.), The development and treatment of childhood aggression (pp. 139–
168). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Raffaele-Mendez, L. M. (2003). Predictors of suspension and negative school outcomes: A longitudinal
investigation. In J. Wald & D. J. Losen (Eds.), New directions for youth development: Vol. 99.
Deconstructing the school-to-prison pipeline (pp. 17–34). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Raffaele-Mendez, L. M., & Knoff, H. M. (2003). Who gets suspended from school and why: A
demographic analysis of schools and disciplinary infractions in a large school district. Education &
Treatment of Children, 26, 30–51.
Raffaele-Mendez, L. M., Knoff, H. M., & Ferron, J. F. (2002). School demographic variables and out-ofschool suspension rates: A quantitative and qualitative analysis of a large, ethnically diverse school
district. Psychology in the Schools, 39, 259–277.
Reynolds, C.R., Skiba, R.J., Graham, S, Sheras, P. Conoley, J.C. & Garcia-Vasquez, E. (2008,
December). Are zero tolerance policies effective in the schools? An evidentiary review and
recommendations. American Psychologist, 63(9), 852–862.
Scott, T. M., & Barrett, S. B. (2004). Using staff and student time engaged in disciplinary procedures to
evaluate the impact of school-wide PBS. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 6, 21–27.
Skiba, R. J., Michael, R. S., Nardo, A. C., & Peterson, R. (2002). The color of discipline: Sources of racial
and gender disproportionality in school punishment. Urban Review, 34, 317–342.
Skiba, R. J., Peterson, R. L., & Williams, T. (1997). Office referrals and suspension: Disciplinary
intervention in middle schools. Education and Treatment of Children, 20, 295–316.
Skiba, R. J., & Rausch, M. K. (2006). Zero tolerance, suspension, and expulsion: Questions of equity and
effectiveness. In C. M. Evertson & C. S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management:
Research, practice, and contemporary issues (pp. 1063–1089). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Free Press.
Thorson, S. (1996). The missing link: Students discuss school discipline. Focus on Exceptional
Children, 29(3), 1-12.
Tobin, T., Sugai, G., & Colvin, G. (1996). Patterns in middle school discipline records. Journal of
Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 4(2), 82–94.
Wehlage, G. G., & Rutter, R. A. (1986). Dropping out: How much do schools contribute to the problem?
Teachers College Record, 87, 374–393.
Wu, S. C., Pink, W. T., Crain, R. L., & Moles, O. (1982). Student suspension: A critical reappraisal. Urban
Review, 14, 245–303.