A Restorative Alternative to Out-of-School Suspensions

We’ve worked in two different secondary schools in which the penalty for cutting school was... out-of-school suspensions! That’s right. If you went AWOL one day, the consequence was another day off—sanctioned by the school. This absurd policy may be considered darkly comical, but the national ramifications of out-of-school suspension are no laughing matter. Fortunately, there are alternatives that work.

What to know about out-of-school suspensions

Beginning in preschool (you read that right), students miss an extraordinary number of school days due to out-of-school suspension, totaling more than 2 million days of instruction in 2020–21 (the most recent data we could find). Black males and students with disabilities are suspended at disproportionate rates to their peers. Black males constitute 8 percent of the total school population but 18 percent of students who are suspended. Students with disabilities comprise 17 percent of school enrollment but 29 percent of students suspended. 

Among the long-term repercussions, out-of-school suspensions can lead to increased juvenile court referrals; diminished college access and college scholarship and job opportunities; and ultimately adult imprisonment. 

As long-time school leaders, we came to question the widespread assumption that out-of-school suspension deters behavior infractions or prevents recidivism. Instead, by following the alternative approach suggested below, strictly limiting suspensions and instead implementing restorative models, we found there was no increase in conduct code violations. We also worked to reduce the likelihood that suspended students would begin to internalize the idea of “I’m a bad person.” We learned from experience that once a student embraced this self-defeating self-image, they would feel locked into negative behavior patterns and be lost from the support of caring adults.

Alternatives to suspension

Research confirms that alternatives to suspension have a beneficial effect on the entire school community. Significantly, these alternative strategies improve relationships, particularly for the most at-risk group: those suspended previously. The UCLA Civil Rights Project and the Learning Policy Institute’s landmark study suggests a number of remedies that schools can adopt as alternatives to out-of-school suspension. Including our experiences as school leaders, we offer the following recommendations for making schools more inclusive and growth-producing. 

Make out-of-school suspension the last resort. Reserve suspension for the most egregious violent, drug-related, or criminal infractions. Many schools assign out-of-school suspension for antisocial acts and violations of institutional norms—for example, disruptive and disrespectful behavior, plagiarism, and yes, truancy. So-called zero tolerance policies assume that the threat of harsh punishment has a deterrent value, but instead they result in a mismatch between a student’s behavior and the school’s reaction, as well as the foreclosure of a broad range of interventions that serve an educational purpose. 

Minimize the time spent out of school. In 2013–14, New York City schools reduced the total number of suspensions by a whopping 16,169 days simply by prohibiting suspension for low-level, first-time offenses and capping suspensions in grades K–3 to five days for “mid-level” infractions. We are not aware of any research suggesting that, say, an eight-day suspension is more effective than a five-day suspension. Given a profound variation in suspension rates between districts and even schools within the same district, the joint UCLA Civil Rights Project–Learning Policy Institute study recommends close school-by-school monitoring of suspension data.

While one cannot be certain about causation, it is possible that a decrease in out-of-school suspensions in the last decade is a result of greater transparency as states publish individual school suspension data. (See New York’s School Report Cards, for example.)

Institute positive practices. Edutopia authors have written extensively on benefits and methods of a restorative justice approach. Another strategy widely covered by Edutopia is social and emotional learning, referring to an array of programs that enable children to develop healthy identities, regulate emotions, nurture supportive relationships, and contribute to a prosocial school climate. 

Other preventive measures validated by research include professional development targeting the improvement of teachers’ classroom management skills, since disruptive classroom behavior is one of the prime causes of suspension; trauma-informed practices; and increased mental health services, including more equitable counselor-per-student ratios in marginalized neighborhoods. Years spent wading through disciplinary incidents in school and district administrative offices inform us that a teacher’s classroom management skills and rapport with students often determines both the frequency and the severity of disciplinary incidents. 

Develop a restorative in-school alternative. One Westchester County, New York, middle school developed a unique, low-cost in-school alternative emphasizing rehabilitation and prompt return to the school community, while remedying the widening learning gap and lack of mental health services associated with traditional out-of-school suspension.

It included the following components: 

• Tutoring. A substitute teacher was hired to provide individual academic support, eliminating learning loss. The child’s teachers occasionally stopped by to assign work, monitor progress, and furnish expert one-to-one instruction. 
• Counseling. Once daily, the student participated in a counseling session led by a school counselor, psychologist, or social worker. Counseling addressed anger management, emotional regulation, communication skills, and other social and emotional issues, and sometimes arranged supervised mediation between disputing parties.
• Community service. A concerning side effect of punishment is its lasting impact on self-image: Children may begin to perceive themselves as bad people or prone to misbehavior. To counteract this tendency, students were required to take part in community service—for example, serving as a buddy or reading to a developmentally disabled peer. The purpose was to bolster the self-esteem of students who might otherwise question their own character. Often, once the term of their consequence was completed, students pleaded to continue the community service during lunchtime, a request granted with a smile! 
• Closing ceremony. This step was equivalent to a psychological intervention. In the afternoon as the consequence was ending, the student; the student’s counselor, teacher, and administrator; and often a parent met around a conference table. Adults praised the child’s positive attributes and expressed their hopes and love for the child. After reflection, the child shared lessons learned from counseling and community service. Tears were often shed. The ceremony began with the lighting of a (battery powered) candle.

At the conclusion, the student was declared a full-fledged member of the school community again, and the candle was extinguished to symbolize moving on. Again, the purpose was to show children that they were not defined by their mistakes, and the school community would be leaving the past where it rightly belonged: in the past.

School leaders have the power to transform punitive disciplinary practices into instruments that foster positive adult-student relationships, promote equity, and create a school culture that focuses on learning and social and emotional growth. Every disciplinary intervention represents a missed opportunity—a teachable moment—to guide a student toward better choices. Administrators have the power to change the narrative and reimagine discipline in ways that build connections rather than shift students further into the margins.