Parsing the Black-White School Suspension Gap

Discipline is Victory or Arbeit Mach du Frei? (Image from Flickr, by Adam Jones)

The U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights recently released data on suspension rates in the U.S. After surveying 72,000 schools that served roughly 85% of the nation’s students they found that black children represent 35% of all suspensions and 39% of all expulsions, though they comprise only 18% of the student population.

Many are calling this proof that the education system discriminates against children of color (Latino suspension and expulsion rates were also high). Considering how much prejudice and discrimination occur in our society at large, it would be surprising if some of it didn’t trickle down to our schools, as well. One would expect some outright racism to be at play, as well as some less overt racial profiling. Indeed, there are studies indicating that black students are disciplined more severely than white students for similar or lesser infractions.

Yet the problem is more complex and pervasive than simple racism or prejudice by some teachers. For example, if suspension and expulsion rates were broken down by socioeconomic status, one would likely find much higher rates of suspensions, expulsions and other disciplinary actions against lower income children than affluent children. Since higher percentages of black and Latino children are poor, it might be that poverty plays a role in discipline, too, possibly even the primary role.

The Wealth-Behavior Connection

Schools are essentially middle class institutions, run by people who either have middle class backgrounds or who have learned to thrive in a middle class environment through their educational and professional experiences. The expectations, norms and mores of the classroom are consequently the product of middle class culture. Students who come from affluent backgrounds, therefore, generally have these expectations, norms and mores internalized and are more likely to behave in the way expected by their teachers, while working class and poor children sometimes have to learn a disciplinary system and expectations that are substantially different from what they are used to.

Children who grow up in a more authoritarian disciplinary culture, for example, might respond more positively to the demand that they “clean up now!” than to the request, “Would you please clean up?” or the announcement that “it is clean up time.” These last two statements, like “Would you mind closing the door?” are actually middle class commands disguised as friendly requests. Someone who is not used to this roundabout way of speaking might believe they actually have a choice. Noncompliance would therefore not only be reasonable, but within the range of acceptable behaviors. Yet a teacher might see this as defiance or disrespect, leading to disciplinary action against the child.

There are also school policies that disproportionately target youth of color without any racist intent. Sagging pants, for example, is a typical dress code violation, yet it is more common among lower income youth of color than among middle class white boys. The question is, are black boys busted for this while white girls with exposed midriffs and white boys with inappropriate t-shirts are allowed to walk?

It is not just that lower income children have different cultural backgrounds than their teachers. They are also more likely to be behind their affluent peers in academic skills, which makes it harder for them to do the classwork and increases the likelihood of off-task or disruptive behavior. Imagine having to sit still for 30-45 minutes with a book or lecture you cannot comprehend.

While the CRDC data indicates that black children are more likely to be labeled as special needs, it is not clear that this is due to the racism of schools and teachers. It might be due to their socioeconomic status. Poverty increases the chances of that a child will have a learning disability. Poor children, for example, are more likely to suffer low birth weights and malnutrition, which can lead to disabilities. Iron-deficiency anemia, which impairs cognitive ability, is twice as common among poor children. According to the Centers for Disease Control, 10% of poor students have dangerous levels of lead in their blood, which can lead to decreased intelligence. Smoking, which is also significantly higher among poor and working class people, can lead to premature births and low birth weights, which both contribute to poor long-term health, cognitive impairment and learning disabilities.

Schools and teachers should obviously look at their policies and how they are enforced to reduce any institutionalized, deliberate or unintended racist inequities. They also need to do a better job of understanding the cultural backgrounds of their students so that they can better support them. However, as long as our society continues to have large socioeconomic disparities, we will continue to see not only a class-based learning gap, but a class-based discipline gap, as well.

Zero-Tolerance Policies Increasing Suspension and Drop-Out Rates

The National Education Policy Center has found that suspension rates across the country are increasing due to “zero tolerance” policies, particularly among poor and minority students. The researchers say this is increasing the dropout rate. According to the Los Angeles Times, much of this increase is due nonviolent offenses like dress code and cellphone violations. Nationally, nearly one-third of all black male middle school students have been suspended at least once. In LAUSD, almost 34% of the students suspended from middle schools last year were African American, while about 11% were Latino, 5% were white and 3% were Asian.

It is rare that students are actually suspended for dress code violations or cell phone use. Rather, when students repeatedly violate school policies, argue about it, or refuse the punishment, they may be suspended for defiance.

This, however, reflects schools’ lack of creativity and vision, not students’ relative badness. When a student doesn’t respond to a punishment in the desired way, the assumption is that progressively worse punishments must be applied. However, for many students, suspension is a treat, a respite from the boredom and oppressiveness of school. Furthermore, there is no indication that progressively worse punishments teach kids how to behave properly. Some kids (and adults) don’t accept the rules in the first place and will simply try to defy them without getting caught.

In terms of creativity, it is seldom necessary to suspend a child for violating cell phone policies. If a school does not want students to use cell phones, all they have to do is take them away from students who use them during class time and keep them for a day, week or semester, depending on how often the infraction has occurred, or require parents to come in and pick them up. Dress code violations are also relatively easy to address without suspensions. Provide students with belts or ropes for sagging pants and provide baggy sweats when exposing too much thigh, belly or cleavage. T-shirts with inappropriate language or gang colors can be swapped for shirts with school logos.

Zero-tolerance policies became popular after the deadly Columbine school shootings in 1999. The assumption was that if dangerous behavior was dealt with harshly and quickly, no more children would die in needless school violence. However, even when applied only to weapons, zero-tolerance policies ignore the socioeconomic and psychological factors that contribute to school violence. Consider the case of Brandon McInerney, who grew up in a family with a violent dad who beat and shot his mother, who was an amphetamine addict (see “Perfect Liberal Storm: Guns, Homophobia, Child Abuse”). This was a child who likely never learned any methods for dealing with stress or conflict other than violence.

Zero-tolerance policies, like mandatory minimum sentencing laws, take away the arbiter’s discretionary power to assess the nuances and mitigating factors in a case. For example, I once had a straight-A student who had never been in any kind of trouble who was expelled for bringing a toy gun to school. This was consistent with the school district’s zero-tolerance policy, but made no sense whatsoever in terms of the child’s wellbeing or the safety of other students and staff.