We Don’t Have to Suspend So Many Kids—But Alternatives Cost $$$$ | EduShyster

We Don’t Have to Suspend So Many Kids—But Alternatives Cost $$$$ | EduShyster:

We Don’t Have to Suspend So Many Kids—But Alternatives Cost $$$$

By Corey Gaber 
The typical *woke* person’s evaluation of the behavior management landscape is that we suspend and expel too many kids. We suspend more than 3 million students a year, twice the level of suspensions in the 1970s. And we suspend kids for less and less severe actions, most famously in no-excuses charter chains, for doing things likesinging Michael Jackson’s Man in the Mirror in the Cafeteria. As has been well documented, we teachers and administrators issue consequences in a racially-biased manner. 

But removing a student from school rarely benefits the student. In fact it often hurts their long term academic prospects. They miss valuable class time and teacher support, which puts them in a tough position to catch up whenever they do return. They often harbor feelings of resentment, embarrassment, and/or confusion about the suspension, combined with their academic falling behind can lead to further acting out. Finally, suspension is unlikely to address the root problem that led to the behavior in the first place.

That said, here’s the thing that progressive educators don’t like to talk about: there is a point where removing a student from the learning environment does benefit everyone else. The learning of an entire class can be derailed by a single student, and allowing that student to remain robs others of an education, and sends a message about just how porous or firm your boundaries are as the leader of your classroom. Which raises a big question. When a student needs to be removed from the learning environment, if We Don’t Have to Suspend So Many Kids—But Alternatives Cost $$$$ | EduShyster: